View Single Post
  #37 (permalink)  
Old 04-12-2018, 02:40 PM
foundit66's Avatar
foundit66 foundit66 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,216
Thanks: 9,965
Thanked 15,063 Times in 9,133 Posts
Post Re: SCOTUS Blocks Release of More Videos Exposing Planned Parenthood Aborted Baby

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr wonder
Speaking of heavily editing people's statements ...

The key words are "simply "saying so"".
There are numerous other examples of the dishonesty discussed other than just PP pointing it out...


Quote:
Originally Posted by mr wonder
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.
No. It's not.
And I'm not entertaining your topic derailment attempt any further.

Facts are simple.
PP has been investigated by numerous states.
Not one of them can document any illegal actions.

Examples like Weinstein are not relevant because there is no documentation on the Weinstein actual occurrences. Finances are documented. Weinstein accusations (for better or worse) turn into he said / she said which is much more nebulous. If they were documented like finances, it would be much more cut and dried!
Stick to the damn topic instead of this incessant derailment attempt to ignore the facts.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mr wonder
You asked several times WHY PP hasn't been convicted.
the analogy address that.
No. It does not.
Hillary is not convicted of fixing the nomination because no laws were broken. Period.
That's not a moral evaluation, but rather a demonstration of why your analogy breaks down and is a bad comparison. It's a bad analogy because her lack of conviction has no bearing as to whether she actually did it. It's based on the lack of legislation.
Even if she were guilty of the various claims against her, there is no law broken.

PP is NOT in that situation. If the charges were true, PP then broke the law.
That is why your analogy is crap.

Moreover, you are trying to use a bad analogy to avoid acknowledging THE FINANCE BOOKS PROVE THE CLAIM WRONG.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mr wonder
So, how is eyewitness testimony (practically a confession) NOT proof FI66??
Because people can lie.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mr wonder
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.
Are you for real right now?
You seriously think that just lying under oath automatically means that perjury charges will happen?

Just look at divorces where husbands and wives provide contradictory claims where inevitably at least one of them has to be lying. But nobody gets charged with perjury.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mr wonder
So ...by your standards... she's not lying, since she hasn't been charged or convicted of perjury.
Yet again, you misrepresent my actual position.
The finance books are real documentation of how PP has made their money.
If PP has been profiting off of fetus parts, the evidence would be built off of the finance books. NOT just one disgruntled ex-employee.

You still cannot answer the question of WHY DO THE FINANCE BOOKS SHOW NO ILLEGAL ACTIVITY???
NONE of the state investigations of the PP books could show ANY illegal activities.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mr wonder View Post
that's a good question, ...coughharveyweinsteincough...
A snide response which completely fails to address the point made.
Remember, tax evasion is what they busted Capone on. By looking over his finances.
The area Capone could not hide were his finances.

The PP finances were reviewed.
NO EVIDENCE demonstrated that they actually had any illegal profit. They are legally allowed to seek compensation for actual expenses involved like transfer, storage, etc.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

Last edited by foundit66; 04-12-2018 at 05:00 PM..
Reply With Quote