Remember that planned parenthood video ?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Funny the Conservatives got caught hook line and sinker and went berserk for week over the edited videos. remember over a Video

and some here happy praise their skills..

Yet it was completely impossible not a snow balls chance in Hell .. that a Video could outrage people or have any influence what happen in Benghazi.. or any other place in the world

And I am not saying it did or it didn't just pointing out Conservatives tend to see others actions easily but they become instantly Blind when they do the same thing

From the way you put it, it seems that you could say the same thing about "Liberals." Which should make it a wash. From the way you put it, both "Conservatives" and "Liberals" are berserk, blind, wackos.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

From the way you put it, it seems that you could say the same thing about "Liberals." Which should make it a wash. From the way you put it, both "Conservatives" and "Liberals" are berserk, blind, wackos.

Agreed the far left and the Far right of both parties do not represent the majority they just tend to yell louder

[spence]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Funny the Conservatives got caught hook line and sinker and went berserk for week over the edited videos. remember over a Video

and some here happy praise their skills..

Yet it was completely impossible not a snow balls chance in Hell .. that a Video could outrage people or have any influence what happen in Benghazi.. or any other place in the world

And I am not saying it did or it didn't just pointing out Conservatives tend to see others actions easily but they become instantly Blind when they do the same thing

Brilliant observation actually.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Brilliant observation actually.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

seemed more likely "apples and oranges" than "brilliant observation" ...good thing those two independent thinking far leftists don't represent the majority

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

seemed more likely "apples and oranges" than "brilliant observation" ...good thing those two independent thinking far leftists don't represent the majority

How do you see apples and oranges 2 types of conservatives going crazy over made up videos.. each it their own fashion.

manipulated by those who made the video who knew true followers would choose emotion over logic and the truth..

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

How do you see apples and oranges 2 types of conservatives going crazy over made up videos.. each it their own fashion.

manipulated by those who made the video who knew true followers would choose emotion over logic and the truth..

how many "types" of conservatives are there?

how many actors were there in the Planned Parenthood "made up video"?

going crazy and "emotion over logic and truth" would describe the administration and hillary's attempt to blame a video for the circumstances at Benghazi

[Nebe]

Ah. There it is.


BENGHAAZZiiiiiiiiii. !!!!!!!!!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

seemed more likely "apples and oranges" than "brilliant observation" ...good thing those two independent thinking far leftists don't represent the majority

Exactly. "apples and oranges".

One video was supposed to have caused something. The other exposed something. The only resemblance was the fact that they were both videos. Whatever that proves.

As for: "Yet it was completely impossible not a snow balls chance in Hell .. that a Video could outrage people or have any influence what happen in Benghazi.. or any other place in the world"--that's typical leftist straw man argument. No one is saying that the video could not outrage people. But as for its "influence", the problem is trying to characterize the attack as a spontaneous reaction to the video. It was known from the very beginning that it was an organized terrorist attack. The violence and threats had been going on in Libya well before the video was introduced. British and other Western embassies were pulling out of Libya. Their countries had nothing to do with the video. For that matter, neither did the U.S. government. Jihadist fatwas are usually against specific offenders. Salmon Rushdie was, and is, a target for his transgression. Britain was not a target because of his sin.

Could the video have been used as a gimmick motivation by Jihadists. Sure. It could be another "grievance" to add to the pile of other little motivational "tools" Jihadists throw against the wall. Why that video, at that time. There were hundreds (at least) of other outrageous anti-Muslim videos available. Any of them could have been used if it was necessary to help motivate an attack. And the pile of motivational "tools" includes everything the West does and is. Even the very fact that non-Muslims are in their countries and imposing Western ideas.

To say that the video was the reason for the attack, a spontaneous one to boot, is more than highly suspect. It supposes that the attack would not have occurred if that video had not been made.

NONSENSE.

I suppose we are to assume that it is "impossible" to think that the video was used as a prop to deflect from what actually went wrong at Benghazi.

The Planned Parenthood video, on the other hand, did not cause, or was not the reason for, what it purportedly exposed. And the way wdmso worded it is the very kind of "going crazy" reaction that he objects to. "Funny the Conservatives got caught hook line and sinker and went berserk for week over the edited videos."

The "conservatives" got caught? And "went berserk or a week"? So all the conservatives got caught and went berserk. Really? And the videos were edited? How do we know that? Because Planned Parenthood said so?

One thing is similar in both videos. Both video makers were indicted for wrong doing. I suppose "Conservatives" are guilty, and "Liberals" didn't do anything wrong. It would be "completely impossible not a snow balls chance in Hell" as wdmso put it, to think otherwise.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Exactly. "apples and oranges".

One video was supposed to have caused something. The other exposed something. The only resemblance was the fact that they were both videos. Whatever that proves.

As for: "Yet it was completely impossible not a snow balls chance in Hell .. that a Video could outrage people or have any influence what happen in Benghazi.. or any other place in the world"--that's typical leftist straw man argument. No one is saying that the video could not outrage people. But as for its "influence", the problem is trying to characterize the attack as a spontaneous reaction to the video. It was known from the very beginning that it was an organized terrorist attack. The violence and threats had been going on in Libya well before the video was introduced. British and other Western embassies were pulling out of Libya. Their countries had nothing to do with the video. For that matter, neither did the U.S. government. Jihadist fatwas are usually against specific offenders. Salmon Rushdie was, and is, a target for his transgression. Britain was not a target because of his sin.

Could the video have been used as a gimmick motivation by Jihadists. Sure. It could be another "grievance" to add to the pile of other little motivational "tools" Jihadists throw against the wall. Why that video, at that time. There were hundreds (at least) of other outrageous anti-Muslim videos available. Any of them could have been used if it was necessary to help motivate an attack. And the pile of motivational "tools" includes everything the West does and is. Even the very fact that non-Muslims are in their countries and imposing Western ideas.

To say that the video was the reason for the attack, a spontaneous one to boot, is more than highly suspect. It supposes that the attack would not have occurred if that video had not been made.

NONSENSE.

I suppose we are to assume that it is "impossible" to think that the video was used as a prop to deflect from what actually went wrong at Benghazi.

The Planned Parenthood video, on the other hand, did not cause, or was not the reason for, what it purportedly exposed. And the way wdmso worded it is the very kind of "going crazy" reaction that he objects to. "Funny the Conservatives got caught hook line and sinker and went berserk for week over the edited videos."

The "conservatives" got caught? And "went berserk or a week"? So all the conservatives got caught and went berserk. Really? And the videos were edited? How do we know that? Because Planned Parenthood said so?

One thing is similar in both videos. Both video makers were indicted for wrong doing. I suppose "Conservatives" are guilty, and "Liberals" didn't do anything wrong. It would be "completely impossible not a snow balls chance in Hell" as wdmso put it, to think otherwise.

"And I am not saying it did or it didn't"

but yet again feel free to hang your Hat on what you think I said

I in no way blamed Benghazi on the Video but you assigned that position to me.. you seem very good at that


I am sorry some can not grasp the similarities .. The outrage over un true made up videos made for 1 reason to decive and mislead those watching.. it seems lies from conservatives are ok it if the mission agrees with ones position .. but lies from the left or deception from the left seem far more heinous ???

I am only pointing that out .. and people get upset

[Nebe]

There is a lot you can point out that some can't grasp. Don't get too worried.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

how many "types" of conservatives are there?

how many actors were there in the Planned Parenthood "made up video"?

going crazy and "emotion over logic and truth" would describe the administration and hillary's attempt to blame a video for the circumstances at Benghazi

if you went crazy and bought into the videos and are a Conservative then you are those who went Crazy. and whom I refer

If you did not buy into them and you are a conservative whom I didn't refer

hillary's attempt to blame a video : you guys need some new stuff seems other reported the same thing .. its shocking that how that could happen .. not saying it was correct intel but was the intel at that moment .. hindsight is always 20\20

And why is the right all fired up on when (TIME) it was called a terrorist attack? so if you have an attack on monday and on thursday you call it a terrorist attack does this change what happened on Monday?? sorry common sense again

AP Report Cited By Fox Got Information From Libyan Government Official, Not Clinton Or The Obama Administration. The Associated Press reported at 5:17 pm, prior to the airing of Fox's Special Report or On the Record, that a Libyan official said the U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi was stormed "after a protest against a video deemed insulting to Islam's prophet, Muhammad." From the AP report: http://mediamatters.org/research/201...ed-that/206391..

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

There is a lot you can point out that some can't grasp. Don't get too worried.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yeah . . . he apparently didn't grasp a thing I said.

[wdmso]

http://www.npr.org/2016/01/28/464594...l-tissue-sales

12 states all republican law makers or Governors wanted investigations after the Fake video
was released july1015

as of today no wrong doing found in any of theses states 2 are still holding out

Detbuch quote "The "conservatives" got caught? And "went berserk or a week"? So all the conservatives got caught and went berserk. Really?"

14 republican states held investigations Thats pretty close to All !!! but again Facts only muddy the water

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

http://www.npr.org/2016/01/28/464594...l-tissue-sales

12 states all republican law makers or Governors wanted investigations after the Fake video
was released july1015

as of today no wrong doing found in any of theses states 2 are still holding out

Detbuch quote "The "conservatives" got caught? And "went berserk or a week"? So all the conservatives got caught and went berserk. Really?"

14 republican states held investigations Thats pretty close to All !!! but again Facts only muddy the water

You seem to be going berserk.

[Jim in CT]

Can someone explain how the video was "edited" in dishonest fashion?

The majority of the controversy surrounding the videos, was the suggestion that PP was taking money for selling baby body parts. Since PP subsequently came out and said that "we will no longer take money in exchange for baby body parts", isn't that a pretty good indication that they were, in fact, previously taking money in exchange for baby body parts? Why would PP announce that they were no longer engaging in an act, if they weren't doing it to begin with?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

"And I am not saying it did or it didn't"

but yet again feel free to hang your Hat on what you think I said

I thought I was hanging my hat on what you said when I replied to your "And I am not saying it did or it didn't" post by saying "From the way you put it, it seems that you could say the same thing about "Liberals." Which should make it a wash. From the way you put it, both "Conservatives" and "Liberals" are berserk, blind, wackos."

I in no way blamed Benghazi on the Video but you assigned that position to me.. you seem very good at that

I reread my post and couldn't find where I assigned that position to you. By implication, I assigned it to Clinton and to the Obama administration for claiming that the video caused a spontaneous attack.

I am sorry some can not grasp the similarities .. The outrage over un true made up videos made for 1 reason to decive and mislead those watching.. it seems lies from conservatives are ok it if the mission agrees with ones position .. but lies from the left or deception from the left seem far more heinous ???

It is a stretch to "grasp" a similarity when it doesn't really exist. The Planned Parenthood videos have been alleged by PP to be deceptively edited. That has not actually been established. And if it does so get established, I don't think "Conservatives" will continue to credit it as "some" on the left continue to believe that the Benghazi video was instrumental in a spontaneous attack.

I am only pointing that out .. and people get upset

Stating a position is not getting upset. And it is not "going berserk."

[detbuch]

http://theresurgent.com/the-death-me...eid=a38d624f2f

I don't have any idea how this is going to shake out in the end, but it is, as Spence would say, interesting.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Can someone explain how the video was "edited" in dishonest fashion?

The majority of the controversy surrounding the videos, was the suggestion that PP was taking money for selling baby body parts. Since PP subsequently came out and said that "we will no longer take money in exchange for baby body parts", isn't that a pretty good indication that they were, in fact, previously taking money in exchange for baby body parts? Why would PP announce that they were no longer engaging in an act, if they weren't doing it to begin with?

Really?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Really?

Yes, really. I gather that one (or more?) of the videos implied something about babies born alive, and that was heavily edited, and they should get called out for that. But PP was absolutely selling baby body parts. I don't think they broke any laws, but they were trading baby body parts for money. That's true, is it not?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I don't think they broke any laws, but they were trading baby body parts for money. That's true, is it not?

Not for profit. They were just getting a reimbursement on handling the tissue. The actually dollars are so low it looks like it's almost at a loss.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Not for profit. They were just getting a reimbursement on handling the tissue. The actually dollars are so low it looks like it's almost at a loss.

Did I say for profit?

They were exchanging baby body parts for money. That may well be legal. But it's offensive to enough Americans, that PP announced that they would stop doing it. Which tells me, that PP openly admitted to doing that which the videos purported they were doing.

"it looks like it's almost at a loss"

Have you ever, ever, EVER engaged in specualtion that didn't cast liberalism in a favorable light? Can you ever be objective?

Selling baby body parts, as long as one only breaks even on the deal, is legal. That doesn't make it ethical, particularly in light of the ghoulish casual nature with which the PP sellers of baby body parts laughed it all off over a nice salad and glass of red wine. That's what sickened a lot of people. I am truly sorry if that doesn't serve your personal agenda, but that's what happened.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Did I say for profit?

They were exchanging baby body parts for money. That may well be legal. But it's offensive to enough Americans, that PP announced that they would stop doing it. Which tells me, that PP openly admitted to doing that which the videos purported they were doing.

No, it means they're being reimbursed for storage, shipping etc...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

No, it means they're being reimbursed for storage, shipping etc...

The things you choose to dig in on, never cease to amaze.

What were they storing and shipping? Oranges, or baby body parts?

And they were making a big joke about it, on tape, over expensive lunches and red wine. The PP staff may well have been operating within the law, but they came across as absolute, monstrous ghouls. Which you'd have to be, to support the eugenic PP mission statement, just ask Margaret Sanger.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

And they were making a big joke about it, on tape, over expensive lunches and red wine.

that's the part where they edited in those comments and photoshopped in food and booze...it wasn't real..just edited to make them look like amoral limolibs which certain types of conservatives obviously fell for and proceeded to go bezerk....hey, this is fun

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The things you choose to dig in on, never cease to amaze.

What were they storing and shipping? Oranges, or baby body parts?

And they were making a big joke about it, on tape, over expensive lunches and red wine. The PP staff may well have been operating within the law, but they came across as absolute, monstrous ghouls. Which you'd have to be, to support the eugenic PP mission statement, just ask Margaret Sanger.

Cue Dangles with a Taliban remark...

[Sea Dangles]

If these were priests abusing kids we would hear the old speech about not letting one bad apple spoil the whole bunch. Groundhog Day indeed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

If these were priests abusing kids we would hear the old speech about not letting one bad apple spoil the whole bunch. Groundhog Day indeed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So all priests are guilty?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

No, and neither is planned parenthood.
Bad apples are everywhere.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

ridiculous comparison...perhaps if some video surfaced of folks at the Vatican or or Diocese offices drinking their wine and eating their bread and y#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g it up over children being fondled....you might have a comparison....I suspect most people would find that pretty distasteful...


the priest comparison would be more like a clinic worker selling parts out the back door and the clinic management staff finding out and transferring that individual rather than calling the authorities