View Single Post
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 04-11-2018, 03:52 PM
mr wonder's Avatar
mr wonder mr wonder is offline
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,094
Thanks: 9,229
Thanked 5,464 Times in 3,695 Posts
Default Re: SCOTUS Blocks Release of More Videos Exposing Planned Parenthood Aborted Baby

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66
Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
..."]Planned Parenthood has said the videos were heavily edited to leave a false impression of wrongdoing[/URL...
Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
...Planned Parenthood has already responded to this person.
....
Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
.I never relied on PP simply "saying so", ergo this response from you is meaningless.


Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
.
There were investigations into the claimed illegal activities.
Regarding your "Hillary" derailment, WHAT ACTUAL LAW do you claim she violated? If you can't point to any such law, your analogy is a bust from the get go.
You may have a point, stealing the national Democratic primary elections isn't illegal i don't think. I believe one of her lawyers said that the DNC can choose and favor any candidate they want.
However, i think this points to a fundamental difference in the way you and i view various issues.
You often want others to site a "LAW" broken, and a Conviction made. Before you'll admit that someone has done something wrong.
While i tend to go with constitutional law, general common sense, morals, Biblical morals standards. And whether or not the preponderance of available public evidence points to the fact that Laws were broken or wrongdoing has been done. Whether or not folks have been convicted.

It seems clear here that by your GENERAL POV, election rigging/tampering/fixing is ok... today. as long as "it's legal".. or folks have not been convicted.
fine. whatever.
let's change the analogy to fit your narrow POV.
Harvey Weinstein has been accused, charged and investigated for decades andyet he hasn't been convicted of breaking any "laws". So therefore he is innocent? correct? JUST LIKE PP. And the women are just lying liars, not giving the whole story, trying to smear him and should STHU or just go to court with evidence.
correct?

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
And that doesn't even address the fact that you can't identify any actual state investigation that came up with no validation of the allegation. Whereas PP has that in their history.
You asked several times WHY PP hasn't been convicted.
the analogy address that.
I'm sure not to your satisfaction but whats new.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
And why didn't they indict? Was it because, despite the testimony of one ex-employee, they couldn't find any actual proof of her claims?
So, how is eyewitness testimony (practically a confession) NOT proof FI66??
She made all her statements under oath. If it could be proven she was lying, she would be charged with perjury. Which she was threatened with during that testimony.
It has not happened.
So ...by your standards... she's not lying, since she hasn't been charged or convicted of perjury.

Fact is She ...and the videos... tell the truth
__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8

Last edited by mr wonder; 04-11-2018 at 04:06 PM..
Reply With Quote