Larry T Spider
100+ Posts
There are so many **** symbols that I cant really read this. Nice work Deez! Any way to turn the potty mouth filter off?
Way too early republican primary thread
- Thread starter Larry T Spider
- Start date
There are so many **** symbols that I cant really read this. Nice work Deez! Any way to turn the potty mouth filter off?
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
I can't find it now but originally there was a Fox commentary that said they had rewatched all 12 hours and the scene is nowhere to be seen. In fact, Fiorina's campaign can't produce the video. Furthermore, the makers of the video are claiming that scene isn't there. With all that said, I haven't seen them myself.
One thing that is clear is that the video is somewhat a sham that the Republicans have seized to stoke their base.
Larry T Spider
100+ Posts
Walker is out. Who gets his votes?
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Does he have any votes? He polled at <1% in the most recent poll. Enjoy being a governor, Mr. Walker.
What was made up? I have not seen or heard that claim. Even if there is no link, please clarify the claim.
I had heard the video was actually a worker describing the episode and not an actual video of the event, i.e., a video capturing a baby squirming but instead the employee verbally describing such an episode. But I'm not watching to determine myself, I've seen enough for me to not wish to fund PP already.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Here was Fiorina's quote directly from the transcript:
She's clearly stating that she watched this scene occur on a video and further uses an emotionally driven story to hammer home the point. She's lying, clear and simple. There is no video of what she says in the 12hrs of Planned Parenthood video.
Larry T Spider
100+ Posts
If she's BSing, it would likely not hurt her until the general election. Republican primary voters don't really care if you make up stuff about what they consider an evil organization.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
It certainly doesn't hurt as they march towards the nomination, especially this year where the more outrageous the better. The problem the R's have is that even the casual voter is watching their debates. That can be a double-edged sword.
Full Disclosure - I'm at least somewhat biased. I like Carly Fiorina and have generally been impressed with her. She's not my first choice, but I could live with her as the nominee. (Specifically, she's my third choice behind Kasich and Rubio.)
However, trying to set aside that bias, I'm not going to call her statement at lie. I did see the video at issue (which the Vox "analyst" initially didn't even acknowledge exist - a far bigger deception than anything Fiorina got wrong), and it pretty much drescribes what she says.
Here's the problem. The fetus moving its arms and legs in teh video is not the fetus that the technician is describing. She got that wrong.
To me, a lie requires an intent to deceive, and considering that the video shows the fetus of a similar age and describes the scenario she describe in the debate, I can't call that a lie.
Let's put it this way. If we're going to deem her statement a lie, very little of what's said in political discourse wouldn't be a lie. Politicians get details (including some pretty major details) wrong almost every time they open their mouths. Hell, virtually every time a Democrat opens his mouth about Social Secuirty, his statement is full of false assumptions, half-truths, and myths that are far more consequential than Fiorina's error that one could easily pick apart. Nevertheless, 99 percent of the time, Politifact and Vox don't say ****. Why? Because they agree with the politics behind the falsehoods.
They jumped on this, because they don't like what she said and because they fear her as a candidate. It was the content and politics behind her statement that bothered them, not its inaccuracy.
However, trying to set aside that bias, I'm not going to call her statement at lie. I did see the video at issue (which the Vox "analyst" initially didn't even acknowledge exist - a far bigger deception than anything Fiorina got wrong), and it pretty much drescribes what she says.
Here's the problem. The fetus moving its arms and legs in teh video is not the fetus that the technician is describing. She got that wrong.
To me, a lie requires an intent to deceive, and considering that the video shows the fetus of a similar age and describes the scenario she describe in the debate, I can't call that a lie.
Let's put it this way. If we're going to deem her statement a lie, very little of what's said in political discourse wouldn't be a lie. Politicians get details (including some pretty major details) wrong almost every time they open their mouths. Hell, virtually every time a Democrat opens his mouth about Social Secuirty, his statement is full of false assumptions, half-truths, and myths that are far more consequential than Fiorina's error that one could easily pick apart. Nevertheless, 99 percent of the time, Politifact and Vox don't say ****. Why? Because they agree with the politics behind the falsehoods.
They jumped on this, because they don't like what she said and because they fear her as a candidate. It was the content and politics behind her statement that bothered them, not its inaccuracy.
Last edited:
Thanks Deez. Unfortunately I do not subscribe to WSJ, so I only got a paragraph about Krugman and Enron.
From the additional posts, I think I get the story. My impression is that Fiorina comes more prepared and coached than any other candidate. She seems to have well rehearsed answers to specific questions/issues that give her a clear advantage over Trump and others at the debate. Only Rubio seems similarly prepared.
On that answer, she got an effective message across to the anti abortion voters in a passionate way.
Anytime Vox is involved, I see no value in the story though. They routinely attack falsely (including the University of Texas).
From the additional posts, I think I get the story. My impression is that Fiorina comes more prepared and coached than any other candidate. She seems to have well rehearsed answers to specific questions/issues that give her a clear advantage over Trump and others at the debate. Only Rubio seems similarly prepared.
On that answer, she got an effective message across to the anti abortion voters in a passionate way.
Anytime Vox is involved, I see no value in the story though. They routinely attack falsely (including the University of Texas).
Eye, I'm not a subscriber either, but it let me see the article. Here's the part about Fiorina.
“Mr. Christie’s mendacity pales, however, in comparison to that of Carly Fiorina,” Krugman then asserts. There’s a paragraph disparaging her business career, followed by this:
But the truly awesome moment came when she asserted that the videos being used to attack Planned Parenthood show “a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.” No, they don’t. Anti-abortion activists have claimed that such things happen, but have produced no evidence, just assertions mingled with stock footage of fetuses.
To support this claim, Krugman links to a post by Vox’s Sarah Kliff titled “Carly Fiorina Is Wrong About the Planned Parenthood Tapes. I Know Because I Watched Them.” Go to the post and you find this correction:
This story initially said I had watched all the Planned Parenthood sting videos. In fact, I reviewed all sting footage released by August 13th, which included all the footage shot inside Planned Parenthood clinics—which was where a scene like the one Fiorina describes would have been.There is some more recent footage shot outside Planned Parenthood clinics that I had not seen. But that footage, according to the Fiorina campaign, is also not the source of the scene the candidate described. So far, the Fiorina campaign has not been able to point to video with the scene Fiorina spoke of in the debate.
Note that the headline still claims Fiorina is “wrong,” even though Kliff’s corrected claim is merely that Fiorina hasn’t proved herself right to Kliff’s satisfaction. TheFederalist manages to find the video that eluded Kliff:
In the video in question, a technician is talking about harvesting the brain of an alive, fully formed fetus. While she tells her story, there is footage of another baby of roughly the same gestational age as the one whose brain she harvested. This baby is seen still kicking and its heart still beating.While it is obviously not the same baby as the one she harvested the brain of, the footage helps viewers to understand what a 19-week old baby looks like when hearing the testimony of an ex-employee who harvested brains from babies of the same age.
The Los Angeles Times’s Michael Hiltzikcharacterized Fiorina’s description of the video as “a pure fabrication.” His post includes an update claiming vindication based on the Federalist piece:
The website’s own analysis shows that it’s Fiorina who is in the wrong. It acknowleges [sic] that neither of the two fetuses in the [Center for Medical Progress] video is the one referred to in CMP’s voiceover—one is “another baby of roughly the same gestational age,” it acknowledges.
But Fiorina was accurately describing what she saw in the video. The worst one can say is that she appears to have mistaken the baby in the footage for the one the technician describes having cut up. And perhaps one can fault the video makers for creating that impression, but it seems to us the Federalist is correct when it observes that “illustrating stories with appropriate images is a common journalistic technique, one used by all media outlets.”
Now return to Krugman: “Anti-abortion activists have claimed that such things happen, but have produced no evidence, just assertions mingled with stock footage of fetuses.” That statement is false. What Krugman calls “just assertions” is the technician’s eyewitness testimony, which is a form of evidence—not incontrovertible, to be sure, but if there is evidence to controvert it, why are Planned Parenthood’s defenders so fixated on the accompanying footage?
Hiltzik answers that question: “The irony is that as the only woman in the Republican field, Fiorina has a golden opportunity to stand up for the reproductive and healthcare rights that her rivals are trampling over at every turn.” He thinks she isn’t even entitled to her opinion.
“Mr. Christie’s mendacity pales, however, in comparison to that of Carly Fiorina,” Krugman then asserts. There’s a paragraph disparaging her business career, followed by this:
But the truly awesome moment came when she asserted that the videos being used to attack Planned Parenthood show “a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.” No, they don’t. Anti-abortion activists have claimed that such things happen, but have produced no evidence, just assertions mingled with stock footage of fetuses.
To support this claim, Krugman links to a post by Vox’s Sarah Kliff titled “Carly Fiorina Is Wrong About the Planned Parenthood Tapes. I Know Because I Watched Them.” Go to the post and you find this correction:
This story initially said I had watched all the Planned Parenthood sting videos. In fact, I reviewed all sting footage released by August 13th, which included all the footage shot inside Planned Parenthood clinics—which was where a scene like the one Fiorina describes would have been.There is some more recent footage shot outside Planned Parenthood clinics that I had not seen. But that footage, according to the Fiorina campaign, is also not the source of the scene the candidate described. So far, the Fiorina campaign has not been able to point to video with the scene Fiorina spoke of in the debate.
Note that the headline still claims Fiorina is “wrong,” even though Kliff’s corrected claim is merely that Fiorina hasn’t proved herself right to Kliff’s satisfaction. TheFederalist manages to find the video that eluded Kliff:
In the video in question, a technician is talking about harvesting the brain of an alive, fully formed fetus. While she tells her story, there is footage of another baby of roughly the same gestational age as the one whose brain she harvested. This baby is seen still kicking and its heart still beating.While it is obviously not the same baby as the one she harvested the brain of, the footage helps viewers to understand what a 19-week old baby looks like when hearing the testimony of an ex-employee who harvested brains from babies of the same age.
The Los Angeles Times’s Michael Hiltzikcharacterized Fiorina’s description of the video as “a pure fabrication.” His post includes an update claiming vindication based on the Federalist piece:
The website’s own analysis shows that it’s Fiorina who is in the wrong. It acknowleges [sic] that neither of the two fetuses in the [Center for Medical Progress] video is the one referred to in CMP’s voiceover—one is “another baby of roughly the same gestational age,” it acknowledges.
But Fiorina was accurately describing what she saw in the video. The worst one can say is that she appears to have mistaken the baby in the footage for the one the technician describes having cut up. And perhaps one can fault the video makers for creating that impression, but it seems to us the Federalist is correct when it observes that “illustrating stories with appropriate images is a common journalistic technique, one used by all media outlets.”
Now return to Krugman: “Anti-abortion activists have claimed that such things happen, but have produced no evidence, just assertions mingled with stock footage of fetuses.” That statement is false. What Krugman calls “just assertions” is the technician’s eyewitness testimony, which is a form of evidence—not incontrovertible, to be sure, but if there is evidence to controvert it, why are Planned Parenthood’s defenders so fixated on the accompanying footage?
Hiltzik answers that question: “The irony is that as the only woman in the Republican field, Fiorina has a golden opportunity to stand up for the reproductive and healthcare rights that her rivals are trampling over at every turn.” He thinks she isn’t even entitled to her opinion.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
She's directly tying that to Planned Parenthood. The video that she's now referencing is part of some documentary called "Human Capital" that was produced separately by the same group. They've even stated that the video is not part of their Planned Parenthood footage. There is also some debate whether the footage in question is real or faked. Given the agenda of the Center for Medical Progress, surely you can agree that creating props for their videos wouldn't be a stretch.
I believe in limitations on abortion. I've stated on this site that eliminating them after 2nd term makes sense. What I take issue with is Fiorina deliberately lying to tie whatever footage she's seen to Planned Parenthood which is just as deceptive as the Center for Medical Progress did when selectively editing their footage to suit an anti-choice agenda.
Last edited:
I'll readily admit that I'm confused a little, so I re-read some of the articles on this issue (including those calling Fiorina a liar). A few things to note. First, "Human Capital" is the CMP's video series on Planned Parenthood. Link.
Second, we need to be clear about what's meant by the term "footage." The video of the moving fetus is stock footage of a fetus at 19 weeks - not at Planned Parenthood. However, there is also video footage of the interview with Holly O'Donnell of StemExpress, who claims (during the footage of the previously mentioned fetus) that she was instructed to procure brain tissue from an aborted fetus with a beating heart, and that did happen at a California Planned Parenthood lab. Politifact acknowledges this but dismisses it without analysis. Link.
What this means is that there are two fetuses in the alleged "footage" - one actually shown and one discussed by the technician. Fiorina's liberal detractors are ignoring or glossing over and sometimes ignoring this fact, even though it's extremely significant. Why? Because it means that Fiorina's claim of living fetuses being killed at Planned Parenthood, while not supported by the video of the moving fetus, is supported by video footage of a firsthand eyewitness and therefore a fair weapon to wield against the organization. Furthermore, though she may have been mistaken about which fetus was at a Planned Parenthood lab, it's a pretty big leap to say she was lying (meaning intentionally making false statements).
(Just a side note - while I'm defending Fiorina here on the video issue, I strongly disagree with her pitch that a government shutdown should be risked to defund Planned Parenthood. That will backfire.)
Larry T Spider
100+ Posts
Is harvesting a brain from a fetus with a beating heart legal in any state? If not, republicans should be focusing on prosecutions. If so, then they should be focused on changing those laws. It is so disgusting, that they could get what they want and score political points at the same time. Instead we are talking about a government shutdown which will distract from an issue they can actually win on.
No, it's not legal. In fact, in many states, it's called capital murder. I totally agree with you. They should be calling for prosecutions at the state level and holding hearings on Planned Parenthood at the federal level. Instead, they're going to wage a budget war they can't win.
I disagree. many have asked for investigation and prosecution where guilty. However, they know this justice department is purely a political arm of Obama and will never move on it. As a result, they are trying to attach it to the budget with strings that there is no funding for PP until an investigation is complete and they are cleared. Yes, the dems can blame the republicans on shutting down the government, but more than 50% of Americans, regardless of abortion view, finds those videos and practices as wrong. In the end, republicans stand to win on that fight.
NJlonghorn
2,500+ Posts
This.
There should be a thorough investigation of Planned Parenthood. How the situation is handled should turn on what the investigation shows.
(1) If these actions are part of a widespread pattern of conduct system-wide, then both the participating individuals and the Planned Parenthood organization, including its leaders, should be prosecuted.
(2) If these actions are part of a pattern of conduct isolated to one or more particular locations, then both the individuals and the local organization(s) should be prosecuted.
(3) If these actions are an isolated incident, the participating individuals should be prosecuted.
In the second or third cases, funding for Planned Parenthood should continue. The organization provides many beneficial services that often aren't otherwise available. If the funding is lost, replacing it will be very difficult, and probably not as effective.
In the first case, I don't see how liberals could justify continuing Planned Parenthood's funding. I'm sure they'd try, but come on.
NJlonghorn
2,500+ Posts
I doubt this. I haven't seen the statistics but I'll concede that more than 50% of Americans oppose the actions in the latest video. I certainly hope you are right. However, that is two steps removed from your position:
Step 1. Does this single video justify defunding an organization that provides a wide range of beneficial services that, in many cases, aren't otherwise available?
Step 2. Is defunding Planned Parenthood important enough to grind the entire government to a halt?
I suspect both of these questions would poll way below 50%.
NJlonghorn
2,500+ Posts
True, and this would reduce the impact of the cuts. But Planned Parenthood operates in many communities (mostly small-town and urban) where they are the only provider. Cutting funding to Planned Parenthood would significantly impact the availability of services to women in these communities.
NJlonghorn
2,500+ Posts
Good point.
Step 1: It was more than one video which suggests the possibility that it is systemic with PP. The funding is provided to other clinics which cover health related services.
Step 2: Is funding PP important enough to grind most (good lib try) of the government to a halt? Ask the dems..
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Is it too early to point out that there is no direct evidence of wrongdoing by PP in the videos? The closest evidence is a single individual that previously worked for PP that is relaying what she saw. It's not illegal to distribute fetal tissue and charge the 3rd party distributors for your costs.
12 hours of videos, hundreds of hours of digging/editing with a specific anti-abortion agenda and the closest the Center for Medical Progress has come to evidence would be against some 3rd parties yet everyone on this thread is screaming to investigate PP. If this were foreign policy it would be akin to Al Queda attacking us and we say "Sadam, how dare you, you're going down".
I so desperately want the fiscal conservatives of the Republican party to return.
12 hours of videos, hundreds of hours of digging/editing with a specific anti-abortion agenda and the closest the Center for Medical Progress has come to evidence would be against some 3rd parties yet everyone on this thread is screaming to investigate PP. If this were foreign policy it would be akin to Al Queda attacking us and we say "Sadam, how dare you, you're going down".
I so desperately want the fiscal conservatives of the Republican party to return.
Larry T Spider
100+ Posts
If history tells me anything, its that dems always win when there is a government shutdown. The republicans point their finger at the dems. The dems and the media always point their fingers at the republicans and the dems win. With the help of the media, the dems will muddy the waters enough to make the shutdown about much more than a living fetus (baby at that point, really) on a table.
SH,
I understand where you're coming from. However, if The lab tech is telling the truth about the living fetus, that's a serious crime committed by those involved. It's a big deal. Investigations have been launched on much weaker evidence. Politics really shouldn't matter on that point.
I'm not for making abortion the center of the GOPs agenda, but I'm not for ignoring possible criminal activity just to avoid the issue coming up. That would be an injustice and a failure of the rule of law.
This is true. The media brings its most partisan game to the table during shutdowns, but the GOP doesn't help itself either. It picks budget figure in areas where there's no room for compromise and at least talks as though they won't compromise, even though they always do in the end. Furthermore, it doesn't prepare the arguments that will be made against them. The Hyde Amendment makes it illegal for taxpayer money to fund abortion, so the defunding won't be of abortion but of the positive things PP sure does. It's just not a smart way to fight PP.
NEW: Pro Sports Forums
Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. This is the place.
Pro Sports Forums
Pro Sports Forums
Recent Threads
-
Elon Musk Stuff
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 572
- West Mall
-
Post Right Wing looniness here
- Started by Seattle Husker
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
-
Trump Administration Accomplishments
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 603
- West Mall
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
