|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 21 2016 05:43 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +Trump used his foundation to fund guerrilla filmmaker James O’KeefeIn Wednesday’s presidential debate, Donald Trump claimed that new videos proved that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had “hired people” and “paid them $1,500” to “be violent, cause fights, [and] do bad things” at Trump rallies. He was referring to videos released this week by conservative activist James O’Keefe that purport to show pro-Clinton activists boasting of their efforts to bait Trump supporters into violent acts. The videos offer no evidence that Clinton or Obama were aware of or behind the alleged dirty tricks. Still, Trump claimed the videos exposed that a violence at a March Chicago rally was a “criminal act” and that it “was now all on tape started by her.” Trump neglected, however, to mention his own connection to the videos, released by James O’Keefe and his Project Veritas tax-exempt group. According to a list of charitable donations made by Trump‘s controversial foundation (provided to the Washington Post in April by Trump’s campaign), on May 13, 2015, it gave $10,000 to Project Veritas. ![[image loading]](https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*cSyrsB3xr39zqRodc_8f3Q.jpeg) Trump, who claimed in the same debate that Hillary Clinton “shouldn’t be allowed to run” for president “based on what she did with e-mails and so many other things,” was funding a convicted criminal. O’Keefe was sentenced to three years of probation, 100 hours of community service, and a $1,500 fine in 2010 after taking a plea bargain following a botched “sting” attempt at the office of then-Sen. Mary Landrieu. What’s more, there is a great deal of reason to be skeptical of the videos themselves. O’Keefe has a long history of selectively editing videos to present a false impression to the viewer. His most famous video, an attack on the now-defunct community organizing group ACORN, supposedly showed employees agreeing to help him smuggle underage prostitutes into the country. It turned out the employees later had called the police and O’Keefe eventually paid $100,000 in a settlement after being sued for surreptitious recording of someone’s voice and image. Even Glenn Beck’s conservative The Blaze slammed O’Keefe over a selectively-edited video purporting to show unethical action on the part of National Public Radio executives, faulting “ editing tactics that seem designed to intentionally lie or mislead about the material being presented. Though the latest video too has been criticized for selective editing by at least one of its subjects, two of the staffers resigned after its release. SourceCan't make these things up.
I also see that Trump has donated quite a lot to Comic Relief.
And his charity gave some money to them too.
|
United States41984 Posts
That's beautiful. Absolutely beautiful. It combines the best of the political corruption of his phony charity with the best of the "paid agitators are rigging the election" line he's constantly spewing. I don't even know what to do with that.
|
On October 21 2016 05:43 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +Trump used his foundation to fund guerrilla filmmaker James O’KeefeIn Wednesday’s presidential debate, Donald Trump claimed that new videos proved that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had “hired people” and “paid them $1,500” to “be violent, cause fights, [and] do bad things” at Trump rallies. He was referring to videos released this week by conservative activist James O’Keefe that purport to show pro-Clinton activists boasting of their efforts to bait Trump supporters into violent acts. The videos offer no evidence that Clinton or Obama were aware of or behind the alleged dirty tricks. Still, Trump claimed the videos exposed that a violence at a March Chicago rally was a “criminal act” and that it “was now all on tape started by her.” Trump neglected, however, to mention his own connection to the videos, released by James O’Keefe and his Project Veritas tax-exempt group. According to a list of charitable donations made by Trump‘s controversial foundation (provided to the Washington Post in April by Trump’s campaign), on May 13, 2015, it gave $10,000 to Project Veritas. Trump, who claimed in the same debate that Hillary Clinton “shouldn’t be allowed to run” for president “based on what she did with e-mails and so many other things,” was funding a convicted criminal. O’Keefe was sentenced to three years of probation, 100 hours of community service, and a $1,500 fine in 2010 after taking a plea bargain following a botched “sting” attempt at the office of then-Sen. Mary Landrieu. What’s more, there is a great deal of reason to be skeptical of the videos themselves. O’Keefe has a long history of selectively editing videos to present a false impression to the viewer. His most famous video, an attack on the now-defunct community organizing group ACORN, supposedly showed employees agreeing to help him smuggle underage prostitutes into the country. It turned out the employees later had called the police and O’Keefe eventually paid $100,000 in a settlement after being sued for surreptitious recording of someone’s voice and image. Even Glenn Beck’s conservative The Blaze slammed O’Keefe over a selectively-edited video purporting to show unethical action on the part of National Public Radio executives, faulting “ editing tactics that seem designed to intentionally lie or mislead about the material being presented. Though the latest video too has been criticized for selective editing by at least one of its subjects, two of the staffers resigned after its release. SourceCan't make these things up.
Project Veritas is 501(c)(3), if people are finding a scandal here it's that if someone doesn't like Trump and doesn't like O'Keefe, then they must viciously dislike the combination.
|
On October 21 2016 05:56 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2016 05:43 ticklishmusic wrote:Drumpf used his foundation to fund guerrilla filmmaker James O’KeefeIn Wednesday’s presidential debate, Donald Drumpf claimed that new videos proved that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had “hired people” and “paid them $1,500” to “be violent, cause fights, [and] do bad things” at Drumpf rallies. He was referring to videos released this week by conservative activist James O’Keefe that purport to show pro-Clinton activists boasting of their efforts to bait Drumpf supporters into violent acts. The videos offer no evidence that Clinton or Obama were aware of or behind the alleged dirty tricks. Still, Drumpf claimed the videos exposed that a violence at a March Chicago rally was a “criminal act” and that it “was now all on tape started by her.” Drumpf neglected, however, to mention his own connection to the videos, released by James O’Keefe and his Project Veritas tax-exempt group. According to a list of charitable donations made by Drumpf‘s controversial foundation (provided to the Washington Post in April by Drumpf’s campaign), on May 13, 2015, it gave $10,000 to Project Veritas. Drumpf, who claimed in the same debate that Hillary Clinton “shouldn’t be allowed to run” for president “based on what she did with e-mails and so many other things,” was funding a convicted criminal. O’Keefe was sentenced to three years of probation, 100 hours of community service, and a $1,500 fine in 2010 after taking a plea bargain following a botched “sting” attempt at the office of then-Sen. Mary Landrieu. What’s more, there is a great deal of reason to be skeptical of the videos themselves. O’Keefe has a long history of selectively editing videos to present a false impression to the viewer. His most famous video, an attack on the now-defunct community organizing group ACORN, supposedly showed employees agreeing to help him smuggle underage prostitutes into the country. It turned out the employees later had called the police and O’Keefe eventually paid $100,000 in a settlement after being sued for surreptitious recording of someone’s voice and image. Even Glenn Beck’s conservative The Blaze slammed O’Keefe over a selectively-edited video purporting to show unethical action on the part of National Public Radio executives, faulting “ editing tactics that seem designed to intentionally lie or mislead about the material being presented. Though the latest video too has been criticized for selective editing by at least one of its subjects, two of the staffers resigned after its release. SourceCan't make these things up. Project Veritas is 501(c)(3), if people are finding a scandal here it's that if someone doesn't like Drumpf and doesn't like O'Keefe, then they must viciously dislike the combination.
So now we are defending O'Keefe to ? Dayemmmm
Its hard enough defending the fact that its not despicable enough to ruin peoples lives in the name of Business but also to do it in the name of social activism. Good on you man.
|
On October 21 2016 04:40 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2016 04:27 Trainrunnef wrote:On October 21 2016 04:17 IgnE wrote:On October 21 2016 03:55 Nyxisto wrote:On October 21 2016 03:43 IgnE wrote:On October 21 2016 03:33 zlefin wrote:On October 21 2016 03:28 IgnE wrote:On October 21 2016 02:44 zlefin wrote:On October 21 2016 02:14 IgnE wrote:On October 21 2016 01:56 oneofthem wrote:
large redistribution to the truly needy does not cost that much. it is the healthcare for boomers that is the big budget item. heeeeey welcome back, friend @zlefin yes i want more details you want to take every conceived fetus slated for abortion and birth it from a test tube? and then what? raise it as a ward of the state? more details: for technology, either an artificial womb, or a womb transplant system to a willing surrogate, could potentially work. it's not meant to solve every problem, it's meant to be a compromise which can reduce the number of abortions. There's also other technologies which could help reduce abortion rate. legally, the extent of restrictions depends in part on what the alternative options available are. one of the reasons a lot of it is up to the mother is that up until pretty late, the fetus cannot be removed from the mother and survive. some reasons for abortion: population control, not helped, though with current trends in birthrates it may be possible to support the additional lives, especially in places where birthrate is below replacement levels. (the below lifted from an online site) Birth control (contraceptive) failure. Over half of all women who have an abortion used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. obviously technological improvements (as well as sociological ones) which reduce contraceptive failure rate will cut down on abortions. iirc the increased use of IUDs has had such an effect. Inability to support or care for a child. To end an unwanted pregnancy. Obviosuly for those 2 cases the cost would be transferred to the state, or adoptive parents. To prevent the birth of a child with birth defects or severe medical problems. Such defects are often unknown until routine second-trimester tests are done. while this will always be an issue, advances in technology may allow for more of these to be fixed either in utero, or otherwise. thus reducing the number of cases where it would be applicable. Pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. doesn't help much with this. (other than potentially removing some of the psychological burden from the victim) Physical or mental conditions that endanger the woman's health if the pregnancy is continued. It would nullify most of these reasons, so long as the procedure for transferring the embryo/fetus was about as safe as an abortion. end of that section; a safe alternate womb system would also mean that the ordinary maternal risks wouldn't apply. (which while not huge, aren't entirely negligible either) if cryogenics or other suspended animation systems became useably safe, then it would be possible for fetuses to be stored until population support cost issues make it more feasible (not sure that would really help at all though). there would be considerable additional costs to the state on the whole from the extra people; and that's a real issue. I'd want the pro-lifers to put up more effort to ensuring the extra lives are cared for and preferably adopted. of course some classes of infant are pretty easy to find adoptive parents for anyways. are there any other additional details you'd like? i honestly think you fundamentally misunderstand the pro-life mindset. reducing abortion rate by providing technological alternatives for carrying fetuses to term is to miss the point. they preserve the sanctity of this fetus while ripping it out of the organic family unit from which it sprung. you are suggesting a technical compromise here with a position that asserts that life is fundamentally mysterious, something not to be meddled with by humans pretending to be god. at its core it makes the mistake of thinking that the pro-life position is ends-oriented; that pro-lifers care about fetuses tout court. pro-choice policy has mostly worked through disciplining of biopower at the population level (i.e. contraceptives, education of women, incentives for marriage). the clumsy attempt to "compromise" with pro-lifers by attempting to improve the rate at which fetuses are carried to term is, i think, offensive in its singular focus on ends in themselves. focusing on the ends in themselves unravels the entire pro-life position, as kwark has attempted to show before (if fetuses are an end in themselves then every egg that is flushed out of of a woman's body is a sin against life itself, a missed opportunity, potential snuffed out). the pro-life agenda is concerned with preserving the transcendental nature of human origins. it needs to preserve that mystery in order to maintain the order in pro-lifers symbolic universe. there are a few different bases for the pro-life belief, some of which would be more satisfied with my proposal, some of which aren't. and if they'd prefer the status quo in america, I can live with that. I'd also disagree with some of your philosophical points, at any rate, i'm not interested in arguing the philosophy or ethics of the points with you; my point was about the potentiality for compromise with some. i'm going to assume there weren't any additional details you wanted. well you are the one who suggested that we should be working on a grand "compromise" and "long term plan" for abortion. i think that fundamentally misunderstands the issue itself. but if you'd rather not talk about the issue itself fine. I think you're underestimating how big the secular pro-life group is, millennials trend to hold stronger pro-life views than their parents at the moment (http://www.gallup.com/poll/126581/Generational-Differences-Abortion-Narrow.aspx) There's a significant group of people who see this as a humanist, ends related issue rather than a religious one. those people are mostly incoherent. i have no idea what it even means to be a secular pro-lifer. it sounds like some kind of suburban naivete. millennials who have never seen a homeless person. It doesn't mean that the position doesn't exist or that it is not logical. I can not be religious but still think murder is a bad thing, why would abortion be any different in terms of the variety of opinions possible. Its good to know that only religious people can truly care for the life of a fetus.... Come on man you are better than this. I personally am against the abortion of a child i would be the father to. Im not a fan of abortion since there are a multitude of options aside from abortion for many people but I also dont believe its my place to tell people what to do about their pregnancies. Im not about to go tell people they cant have an abortion just because i would want to father a child i create. Big difference there and way too nuanced for a poll that would ask "are you against abortion?" And please note my position isnt religious. Its just that at this point in my life i would be happy being a father and eventually do want kids. Now there is more nuance to this position. I couldnt handle raising a child with a serious health issue or mental deficiency so if i had the knowledge this was the case i would personally accept abortion as an outcome for the fetus. At some point though even medical science says a fetus has some level of consciousness and brain activity so at that point humanity takes over and i would have serious concerns about aborting a fetus when that point arrives. But still imo its a parents personal decision and so i leave it with them regardless of my thoughts on the matter.
Even saying you're against the abortion of your offspring is pretty contentious in its own right. Where do you stand on paternal rights in the abortion, provided the mother of your future child can't come to agreement?
|
Even if you don't find particular wrongdoing in Trump funding O'Keefe, the stuff O'Keefe himself does is pretty fucking indefensible.
At the very least, there's a certain amount of irony in Trump having funded him.
|
United States41984 Posts
On October 21 2016 05:56 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2016 05:43 ticklishmusic wrote:Trump used his foundation to fund guerrilla filmmaker James O’KeefeIn Wednesday’s presidential debate, Donald Trump claimed that new videos proved that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had “hired people” and “paid them $1,500” to “be violent, cause fights, [and] do bad things” at Trump rallies. He was referring to videos released this week by conservative activist James O’Keefe that purport to show pro-Clinton activists boasting of their efforts to bait Trump supporters into violent acts. The videos offer no evidence that Clinton or Obama were aware of or behind the alleged dirty tricks. Still, Trump claimed the videos exposed that a violence at a March Chicago rally was a “criminal act” and that it “was now all on tape started by her.” Trump neglected, however, to mention his own connection to the videos, released by James O’Keefe and his Project Veritas tax-exempt group. According to a list of charitable donations made by Trump‘s controversial foundation (provided to the Washington Post in April by Trump’s campaign), on May 13, 2015, it gave $10,000 to Project Veritas. Trump, who claimed in the same debate that Hillary Clinton “shouldn’t be allowed to run” for president “based on what she did with e-mails and so many other things,” was funding a convicted criminal. O’Keefe was sentenced to three years of probation, 100 hours of community service, and a $1,500 fine in 2010 after taking a plea bargain following a botched “sting” attempt at the office of then-Sen. Mary Landrieu. What’s more, there is a great deal of reason to be skeptical of the videos themselves. O’Keefe has a long history of selectively editing videos to present a false impression to the viewer. His most famous video, an attack on the now-defunct community organizing group ACORN, supposedly showed employees agreeing to help him smuggle underage prostitutes into the country. It turned out the employees later had called the police and O’Keefe eventually paid $100,000 in a settlement after being sued for surreptitious recording of someone’s voice and image. Even Glenn Beck’s conservative The Blaze slammed O’Keefe over a selectively-edited video purporting to show unethical action on the part of National Public Radio executives, faulting “ editing tactics that seem designed to intentionally lie or mislead about the material being presented. Though the latest video too has been criticized for selective editing by at least one of its subjects, two of the staffers resigned after its release. SourceCan't make these things up. Project Veritas is 501(c)(3), if people are finding a scandal here it's that if someone doesn't like Trump and doesn't like O'Keefe, then they must viciously dislike the combination.
Or, alternatively, it's yet another case of the Trump Foundation giving money to political allies of Trump in a way that is a clear violation of the principles of the Foundation.
Like how are you not getting this? Donald Trump should not be buying things for himself with Foundation money. Not paying settlements. Not buying portraits. Not bribing Attorney Generals. Not funding political campaigns. Not hiring political hitmen. None of it.
This isn't hugely complicated. I'll number the points at you let me know where you got lost.
1. The Trump Foundation has been paying for things that directly benefit Donald Trump, including in some cases just paying off his debts.
2. They shouldn't be doing that.
Which number did I lose you on?
|
On October 21 2016 06:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2016 05:56 oBlade wrote:On October 21 2016 05:43 ticklishmusic wrote:Trump used his foundation to fund guerrilla filmmaker James O’KeefeIn Wednesday’s presidential debate, Donald Trump claimed that new videos proved that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had “hired people” and “paid them $1,500” to “be violent, cause fights, [and] do bad things” at Trump rallies. He was referring to videos released this week by conservative activist James O’Keefe that purport to show pro-Clinton activists boasting of their efforts to bait Trump supporters into violent acts. The videos offer no evidence that Clinton or Obama were aware of or behind the alleged dirty tricks. Still, Trump claimed the videos exposed that a violence at a March Chicago rally was a “criminal act” and that it “was now all on tape started by her.” Trump neglected, however, to mention his own connection to the videos, released by James O’Keefe and his Project Veritas tax-exempt group. According to a list of charitable donations made by Trump‘s controversial foundation (provided to the Washington Post in April by Trump’s campaign), on May 13, 2015, it gave $10,000 to Project Veritas. Trump, who claimed in the same debate that Hillary Clinton “shouldn’t be allowed to run” for president “based on what she did with e-mails and so many other things,” was funding a convicted criminal. O’Keefe was sentenced to three years of probation, 100 hours of community service, and a $1,500 fine in 2010 after taking a plea bargain following a botched “sting” attempt at the office of then-Sen. Mary Landrieu. What’s more, there is a great deal of reason to be skeptical of the videos themselves. O’Keefe has a long history of selectively editing videos to present a false impression to the viewer. His most famous video, an attack on the now-defunct community organizing group ACORN, supposedly showed employees agreeing to help him smuggle underage prostitutes into the country. It turned out the employees later had called the police and O’Keefe eventually paid $100,000 in a settlement after being sued for surreptitious recording of someone’s voice and image. Even Glenn Beck’s conservative The Blaze slammed O’Keefe over a selectively-edited video purporting to show unethical action on the part of National Public Radio executives, faulting “ editing tactics that seem designed to intentionally lie or mislead about the material being presented. Though the latest video too has been criticized for selective editing by at least one of its subjects, two of the staffers resigned after its release. SourceCan't make these things up. Project Veritas is 501(c)(3), if people are finding a scandal here it's that if someone doesn't like Trump and doesn't like O'Keefe, then they must viciously dislike the combination. Or, alternatively, it's yet another case of the Trump Foundation giving money to political allies of Trump in a way that is a clear violation of the principles of the Foundation. Like how are you not getting this? Donald Trump should not be buying things for himself with Foundation money. Not paying settlements. Not buying portraits. Not bribing Attorney Generals. Not funding political campaigns. Not hiring political hitmen. None of it. This isn't hugely complicated. I'll number the points at you let me know where you got lost. 1. The Trump Foundation has been paying for things that directly benefit Donald Trump, including in some cases just paying off his debts. 2. They shouldn't be doing that. Which number did I lose you on?
you forgot "the foundation shouldn't have been raising more than $25k without filing paperwork in NY".
|
On October 21 2016 05:59 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2016 04:40 ZeromuS wrote:On October 21 2016 04:27 Trainrunnef wrote:On October 21 2016 04:17 IgnE wrote:On October 21 2016 03:55 Nyxisto wrote:On October 21 2016 03:43 IgnE wrote:On October 21 2016 03:33 zlefin wrote:On October 21 2016 03:28 IgnE wrote:On October 21 2016 02:44 zlefin wrote:On October 21 2016 02:14 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
heeeeey welcome back, friend
@zlefin
yes i want more details
you want to take every conceived fetus slated for abortion and birth it from a test tube? and then what? raise it as a ward of the state?
more details: for technology, either an artificial womb, or a womb transplant system to a willing surrogate, could potentially work. it's not meant to solve every problem, it's meant to be a compromise which can reduce the number of abortions. There's also other technologies which could help reduce abortion rate. legally, the extent of restrictions depends in part on what the alternative options available are. one of the reasons a lot of it is up to the mother is that up until pretty late, the fetus cannot be removed from the mother and survive. some reasons for abortion: population control, not helped, though with current trends in birthrates it may be possible to support the additional lives, especially in places where birthrate is below replacement levels. (the below lifted from an online site) Birth control (contraceptive) failure. Over half of all women who have an abortion used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. obviously technological improvements (as well as sociological ones) which reduce contraceptive failure rate will cut down on abortions. iirc the increased use of IUDs has had such an effect. Inability to support or care for a child. To end an unwanted pregnancy. Obviosuly for those 2 cases the cost would be transferred to the state, or adoptive parents. To prevent the birth of a child with birth defects or severe medical problems. Such defects are often unknown until routine second-trimester tests are done. while this will always be an issue, advances in technology may allow for more of these to be fixed either in utero, or otherwise. thus reducing the number of cases where it would be applicable. Pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. doesn't help much with this. (other than potentially removing some of the psychological burden from the victim) Physical or mental conditions that endanger the woman's health if the pregnancy is continued. It would nullify most of these reasons, so long as the procedure for transferring the embryo/fetus was about as safe as an abortion. end of that section; a safe alternate womb system would also mean that the ordinary maternal risks wouldn't apply. (which while not huge, aren't entirely negligible either) if cryogenics or other suspended animation systems became useably safe, then it would be possible for fetuses to be stored until population support cost issues make it more feasible (not sure that would really help at all though). there would be considerable additional costs to the state on the whole from the extra people; and that's a real issue. I'd want the pro-lifers to put up more effort to ensuring the extra lives are cared for and preferably adopted. of course some classes of infant are pretty easy to find adoptive parents for anyways. are there any other additional details you'd like? i honestly think you fundamentally misunderstand the pro-life mindset. reducing abortion rate by providing technological alternatives for carrying fetuses to term is to miss the point. they preserve the sanctity of this fetus while ripping it out of the organic family unit from which it sprung. you are suggesting a technical compromise here with a position that asserts that life is fundamentally mysterious, something not to be meddled with by humans pretending to be god. at its core it makes the mistake of thinking that the pro-life position is ends-oriented; that pro-lifers care about fetuses tout court. pro-choice policy has mostly worked through disciplining of biopower at the population level (i.e. contraceptives, education of women, incentives for marriage). the clumsy attempt to "compromise" with pro-lifers by attempting to improve the rate at which fetuses are carried to term is, i think, offensive in its singular focus on ends in themselves. focusing on the ends in themselves unravels the entire pro-life position, as kwark has attempted to show before (if fetuses are an end in themselves then every egg that is flushed out of of a woman's body is a sin against life itself, a missed opportunity, potential snuffed out). the pro-life agenda is concerned with preserving the transcendental nature of human origins. it needs to preserve that mystery in order to maintain the order in pro-lifers symbolic universe. there are a few different bases for the pro-life belief, some of which would be more satisfied with my proposal, some of which aren't. and if they'd prefer the status quo in america, I can live with that. I'd also disagree with some of your philosophical points, at any rate, i'm not interested in arguing the philosophy or ethics of the points with you; my point was about the potentiality for compromise with some. i'm going to assume there weren't any additional details you wanted. well you are the one who suggested that we should be working on a grand "compromise" and "long term plan" for abortion. i think that fundamentally misunderstands the issue itself. but if you'd rather not talk about the issue itself fine. I think you're underestimating how big the secular pro-life group is, millennials trend to hold stronger pro-life views than their parents at the moment (http://www.gallup.com/poll/126581/Generational-Differences-Abortion-Narrow.aspx) There's a significant group of people who see this as a humanist, ends related issue rather than a religious one. those people are mostly incoherent. i have no idea what it even means to be a secular pro-lifer. it sounds like some kind of suburban naivete. millennials who have never seen a homeless person. It doesn't mean that the position doesn't exist or that it is not logical. I can not be religious but still think murder is a bad thing, why would abortion be any different in terms of the variety of opinions possible. Its good to know that only religious people can truly care for the life of a fetus.... Come on man you are better than this. I personally am against the abortion of a child i would be the father to. Im not a fan of abortion since there are a multitude of options aside from abortion for many people but I also dont believe its my place to tell people what to do about their pregnancies. Im not about to go tell people they cant have an abortion just because i would want to father a child i create. Big difference there and way too nuanced for a poll that would ask "are you against abortion?" And please note my position isnt religious. Its just that at this point in my life i would be happy being a father and eventually do want kids. Now there is more nuance to this position. I couldnt handle raising a child with a serious health issue or mental deficiency so if i had the knowledge this was the case i would personally accept abortion as an outcome for the fetus. At some point though even medical science says a fetus has some level of consciousness and brain activity so at that point humanity takes over and i would have serious concerns about aborting a fetus when that point arrives. But still imo its a parents personal decision and so i leave it with them regardless of my thoughts on the matter. Even saying you're against the abortion of your offspring is pretty contentious in its own right. Where do you stand on paternal rights in the abortion, provided the mother of your future child can't come to agreement?
Being that it isn't the father's body its not really a discussion.
|
On October 21 2016 05:57 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2016 05:56 oBlade wrote:On October 21 2016 05:43 ticklishmusic wrote:Drumpf used his foundation to fund guerrilla filmmaker James O’KeefeIn Wednesday’s presidential debate, Donald Drumpf claimed that new videos proved that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had “hired people” and “paid them $1,500” to “be violent, cause fights, [and] do bad things” at Drumpf rallies. He was referring to videos released this week by conservative activist James O’Keefe that purport to show pro-Clinton activists boasting of their efforts to bait Drumpf supporters into violent acts. The videos offer no evidence that Clinton or Obama were aware of or behind the alleged dirty tricks. Still, Drumpf claimed the videos exposed that a violence at a March Chicago rally was a “criminal act” and that it “was now all on tape started by her.” Drumpf neglected, however, to mention his own connection to the videos, released by James O’Keefe and his Project Veritas tax-exempt group. According to a list of charitable donations made by Drumpf‘s controversial foundation (provided to the Washington Post in April by Drumpf’s campaign), on May 13, 2015, it gave $10,000 to Project Veritas. Drumpf, who claimed in the same debate that Hillary Clinton “shouldn’t be allowed to run” for president “based on what she did with e-mails and so many other things,” was funding a convicted criminal. O’Keefe was sentenced to three years of probation, 100 hours of community service, and a $1,500 fine in 2010 after taking a plea bargain following a botched “sting” attempt at the office of then-Sen. Mary Landrieu. What’s more, there is a great deal of reason to be skeptical of the videos themselves. O’Keefe has a long history of selectively editing videos to present a false impression to the viewer. His most famous video, an attack on the now-defunct community organizing group ACORN, supposedly showed employees agreeing to help him smuggle underage prostitutes into the country. It turned out the employees later had called the police and O’Keefe eventually paid $100,000 in a settlement after being sued for surreptitious recording of someone’s voice and image. Even Glenn Beck’s conservative The Blaze slammed O’Keefe over a selectively-edited video purporting to show unethical action on the part of National Public Radio executives, faulting “ editing tactics that seem designed to intentionally lie or mislead about the material being presented. Though the latest video too has been criticized for selective editing by at least one of its subjects, two of the staffers resigned after its release. SourceCan't make these things up. Project Veritas is 501(c)(3), if people are finding a scandal here it's that if someone doesn't like Drumpf and doesn't like O'Keefe, then they must viciously dislike the combination. So now we are defending O'Keefe to ? Dayemmmm Its hard enough defending the fact that its not despicable enough to ruin peoples lives in the name of Business but also to do it in the name of social activism. Good on you man.
Are you talking about the DNC people that resigned?
|
On October 21 2016 06:04 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2016 05:57 Rebs wrote:On October 21 2016 05:56 oBlade wrote:On October 21 2016 05:43 ticklishmusic wrote:Drumpf used his foundation to fund guerrilla filmmaker James O’KeefeIn Wednesday’s presidential debate, Donald Drumpf claimed that new videos proved that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had “hired people” and “paid them $1,500” to “be violent, cause fights, [and] do bad things” at Drumpf rallies. He was referring to videos released this week by conservative activist James O’Keefe that purport to show pro-Clinton activists boasting of their efforts to bait Drumpf supporters into violent acts. The videos offer no evidence that Clinton or Obama were aware of or behind the alleged dirty tricks. Still, Drumpf claimed the videos exposed that a violence at a March Chicago rally was a “criminal act” and that it “was now all on tape started by her.” Drumpf neglected, however, to mention his own connection to the videos, released by James O’Keefe and his Project Veritas tax-exempt group. According to a list of charitable donations made by Drumpf‘s controversial foundation (provided to the Washington Post in April by Drumpf’s campaign), on May 13, 2015, it gave $10,000 to Project Veritas. Drumpf, who claimed in the same debate that Hillary Clinton “shouldn’t be allowed to run” for president “based on what she did with e-mails and so many other things,” was funding a convicted criminal. O’Keefe was sentenced to three years of probation, 100 hours of community service, and a $1,500 fine in 2010 after taking a plea bargain following a botched “sting” attempt at the office of then-Sen. Mary Landrieu. What’s more, there is a great deal of reason to be skeptical of the videos themselves. O’Keefe has a long history of selectively editing videos to present a false impression to the viewer. His most famous video, an attack on the now-defunct community organizing group ACORN, supposedly showed employees agreeing to help him smuggle underage prostitutes into the country. It turned out the employees later had called the police and O’Keefe eventually paid $100,000 in a settlement after being sued for surreptitious recording of someone’s voice and image. Even Glenn Beck’s conservative The Blaze slammed O’Keefe over a selectively-edited video purporting to show unethical action on the part of National Public Radio executives, faulting “ editing tactics that seem designed to intentionally lie or mislead about the material being presented. Though the latest video too has been criticized for selective editing by at least one of its subjects, two of the staffers resigned after its release. SourceCan't make these things up. Project Veritas is 501(c)(3), if people are finding a scandal here it's that if someone doesn't like Drumpf and doesn't like O'Keefe, then they must viciously dislike the combination. So now we are defending O'Keefe to ? Dayemmmm Its hard enough defending the fact that its not despicable enough to ruin peoples lives in the name of Business but also to do it in the name of social activism. Good on you man. Are you talking about the DNC people that resigned?
No, I dont think you are quite familiar with O'Keefes full body of work.
|
United States41984 Posts
On October 21 2016 06:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2016 05:59 Danglars wrote:On October 21 2016 04:40 ZeromuS wrote:On October 21 2016 04:27 Trainrunnef wrote:On October 21 2016 04:17 IgnE wrote:On October 21 2016 03:55 Nyxisto wrote:On October 21 2016 03:43 IgnE wrote:On October 21 2016 03:33 zlefin wrote:On October 21 2016 03:28 IgnE wrote:On October 21 2016 02:44 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
more details:
for technology, either an artificial womb, or a womb transplant system to a willing surrogate, could potentially work.
it's not meant to solve every problem, it's meant to be a compromise which can reduce the number of abortions.
There's also other technologies which could help reduce abortion rate.
legally, the extent of restrictions depends in part on what the alternative options available are. one of the reasons a lot of it is up to the mother is that up until pretty late, the fetus cannot be removed from the mother and survive.
some reasons for abortion:
population control, not helped, though with current trends in birthrates it may be possible to support the additional lives, especially in places where birthrate is below replacement levels.
(the below lifted from an online site)
Birth control (contraceptive) failure. Over half of all women who have an abortion used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant.
obviously technological improvements (as well as sociological ones) which reduce contraceptive failure rate will cut down on abortions. iirc the increased use of IUDs has had such an effect.
Inability to support or care for a child.
To end an unwanted pregnancy.
Obviosuly for those 2 cases the cost would be transferred to the state, or adoptive parents.
To prevent the birth of a child with birth defects or severe medical problems. Such defects are often unknown until routine second-trimester tests are done.
while this will always be an issue, advances in technology may allow for more of these to be fixed either in utero, or otherwise. thus reducing the number of cases where it would be applicable.
Pregnancy resulting from rape or incest.
doesn't help much with this. (other than potentially removing some of the psychological burden from the victim)
Physical or mental conditions that endanger the woman's health if the pregnancy is continued.
It would nullify most of these reasons, so long as the procedure for transferring the embryo/fetus was about as safe as an abortion.
end of that section;
a safe alternate womb system would also mean that the ordinary maternal risks wouldn't apply. (which while not huge, aren't entirely negligible either)
if cryogenics or other suspended animation systems became useably safe, then it would be possible for fetuses to be stored until population support cost issues make it more feasible (not sure that would really help at all though).
there would be considerable additional costs to the state on the whole from the extra people; and that's a real issue. I'd want the pro-lifers to put up more effort to ensuring the extra lives are cared for and preferably adopted. of course some classes of infant are pretty easy to find adoptive parents for anyways.
are there any other additional details you'd like? i honestly think you fundamentally misunderstand the pro-life mindset. reducing abortion rate by providing technological alternatives for carrying fetuses to term is to miss the point. they preserve the sanctity of this fetus while ripping it out of the organic family unit from which it sprung. you are suggesting a technical compromise here with a position that asserts that life is fundamentally mysterious, something not to be meddled with by humans pretending to be god. at its core it makes the mistake of thinking that the pro-life position is ends-oriented; that pro-lifers care about fetuses tout court. pro-choice policy has mostly worked through disciplining of biopower at the population level (i.e. contraceptives, education of women, incentives for marriage). the clumsy attempt to "compromise" with pro-lifers by attempting to improve the rate at which fetuses are carried to term is, i think, offensive in its singular focus on ends in themselves. focusing on the ends in themselves unravels the entire pro-life position, as kwark has attempted to show before (if fetuses are an end in themselves then every egg that is flushed out of of a woman's body is a sin against life itself, a missed opportunity, potential snuffed out). the pro-life agenda is concerned with preserving the transcendental nature of human origins. it needs to preserve that mystery in order to maintain the order in pro-lifers symbolic universe. there are a few different bases for the pro-life belief, some of which would be more satisfied with my proposal, some of which aren't. and if they'd prefer the status quo in america, I can live with that. I'd also disagree with some of your philosophical points, at any rate, i'm not interested in arguing the philosophy or ethics of the points with you; my point was about the potentiality for compromise with some. i'm going to assume there weren't any additional details you wanted. well you are the one who suggested that we should be working on a grand "compromise" and "long term plan" for abortion. i think that fundamentally misunderstands the issue itself. but if you'd rather not talk about the issue itself fine. I think you're underestimating how big the secular pro-life group is, millennials trend to hold stronger pro-life views than their parents at the moment (http://www.gallup.com/poll/126581/Generational-Differences-Abortion-Narrow.aspx) There's a significant group of people who see this as a humanist, ends related issue rather than a religious one. those people are mostly incoherent. i have no idea what it even means to be a secular pro-lifer. it sounds like some kind of suburban naivete. millennials who have never seen a homeless person. It doesn't mean that the position doesn't exist or that it is not logical. I can not be religious but still think murder is a bad thing, why would abortion be any different in terms of the variety of opinions possible. Its good to know that only religious people can truly care for the life of a fetus.... Come on man you are better than this. I personally am against the abortion of a child i would be the father to. Im not a fan of abortion since there are a multitude of options aside from abortion for many people but I also dont believe its my place to tell people what to do about their pregnancies. Im not about to go tell people they cant have an abortion just because i would want to father a child i create. Big difference there and way too nuanced for a poll that would ask "are you against abortion?" And please note my position isnt religious. Its just that at this point in my life i would be happy being a father and eventually do want kids. Now there is more nuance to this position. I couldnt handle raising a child with a serious health issue or mental deficiency so if i had the knowledge this was the case i would personally accept abortion as an outcome for the fetus. At some point though even medical science says a fetus has some level of consciousness and brain activity so at that point humanity takes over and i would have serious concerns about aborting a fetus when that point arrives. But still imo its a parents personal decision and so i leave it with them regardless of my thoughts on the matter. Even saying you're against the abortion of your offspring is pretty contentious in its own right. Where do you stand on paternal rights in the abortion, provided the mother of your future child can't come to agreement? Being that it isn't the father's body its not really a discussion.
This. If I wanted a child and was prepared to do all the spending and raising and paying and so forth and wouldn't ask for a penny in child support and the woman I got pregnant went "nope, killing it" I'd be mad. And I'd have a right to be mad. That would really suck. But at no point would I have the right to demand that she give me her body to use as an incubator for my child.
|
On October 21 2016 06:05 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2016 06:04 oBlade wrote:On October 21 2016 05:57 Rebs wrote:On October 21 2016 05:56 oBlade wrote:On October 21 2016 05:43 ticklishmusic wrote:Drumpf used his foundation to fund guerrilla filmmaker James O’KeefeIn Wednesday’s presidential debate, Donald Drumpf claimed that new videos proved that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had “hired people” and “paid them $1,500” to “be violent, cause fights, [and] do bad things” at Drumpf rallies. He was referring to videos released this week by conservative activist James O’Keefe that purport to show pro-Clinton activists boasting of their efforts to bait Drumpf supporters into violent acts. The videos offer no evidence that Clinton or Obama were aware of or behind the alleged dirty tricks. Still, Drumpf claimed the videos exposed that a violence at a March Chicago rally was a “criminal act” and that it “was now all on tape started by her.” Drumpf neglected, however, to mention his own connection to the videos, released by James O’Keefe and his Project Veritas tax-exempt group. According to a list of charitable donations made by Drumpf‘s controversial foundation (provided to the Washington Post in April by Drumpf’s campaign), on May 13, 2015, it gave $10,000 to Project Veritas. Drumpf, who claimed in the same debate that Hillary Clinton “shouldn’t be allowed to run” for president “based on what she did with e-mails and so many other things,” was funding a convicted criminal. O’Keefe was sentenced to three years of probation, 100 hours of community service, and a $1,500 fine in 2010 after taking a plea bargain following a botched “sting” attempt at the office of then-Sen. Mary Landrieu. What’s more, there is a great deal of reason to be skeptical of the videos themselves. O’Keefe has a long history of selectively editing videos to present a false impression to the viewer. His most famous video, an attack on the now-defunct community organizing group ACORN, supposedly showed employees agreeing to help him smuggle underage prostitutes into the country. It turned out the employees later had called the police and O’Keefe eventually paid $100,000 in a settlement after being sued for surreptitious recording of someone’s voice and image. Even Glenn Beck’s conservative The Blaze slammed O’Keefe over a selectively-edited video purporting to show unethical action on the part of National Public Radio executives, faulting “ editing tactics that seem designed to intentionally lie or mislead about the material being presented. Though the latest video too has been criticized for selective editing by at least one of its subjects, two of the staffers resigned after its release. SourceCan't make these things up. Project Veritas is 501(c)(3), if people are finding a scandal here it's that if someone doesn't like Drumpf and doesn't like O'Keefe, then they must viciously dislike the combination. So now we are defending O'Keefe to ? Dayemmmm Its hard enough defending the fact that its not despicable enough to ruin peoples lives in the name of Business but also to do it in the name of social activism. Good on you man. Are you talking about the DNC people that resigned? No, I dont think you are quite familiar with O'Keefes full body of work.
Thank you for clarifying what you were referring to.
|
On October 21 2016 06:06 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2016 06:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 21 2016 05:59 Danglars wrote:On October 21 2016 04:40 ZeromuS wrote:On October 21 2016 04:27 Trainrunnef wrote:On October 21 2016 04:17 IgnE wrote:On October 21 2016 03:55 Nyxisto wrote:On October 21 2016 03:43 IgnE wrote:On October 21 2016 03:33 zlefin wrote:On October 21 2016 03:28 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
i honestly think you fundamentally misunderstand the pro-life mindset. reducing abortion rate by providing technological alternatives for carrying fetuses to term is to miss the point. they preserve the sanctity of this fetus while ripping it out of the organic family unit from which it sprung. you are suggesting a technical compromise here with a position that asserts that life is fundamentally mysterious, something not to be meddled with by humans pretending to be god.
at its core it makes the mistake of thinking that the pro-life position is ends-oriented; that pro-lifers care about fetuses tout court. pro-choice policy has mostly worked through disciplining of biopower at the population level (i.e. contraceptives, education of women, incentives for marriage). the clumsy attempt to "compromise" with pro-lifers by attempting to improve the rate at which fetuses are carried to term is, i think, offensive in its singular focus on ends in themselves. focusing on the ends in themselves unravels the entire pro-life position, as kwark has attempted to show before (if fetuses are an end in themselves then every egg that is flushed out of of a woman's body is a sin against life itself, a missed opportunity, potential snuffed out).
the pro-life agenda is concerned with preserving the transcendental nature of human origins. it needs to preserve that mystery in order to maintain the order in pro-lifers symbolic universe.
there are a few different bases for the pro-life belief, some of which would be more satisfied with my proposal, some of which aren't. and if they'd prefer the status quo in america, I can live with that. I'd also disagree with some of your philosophical points, at any rate, i'm not interested in arguing the philosophy or ethics of the points with you; my point was about the potentiality for compromise with some. i'm going to assume there weren't any additional details you wanted. well you are the one who suggested that we should be working on a grand "compromise" and "long term plan" for abortion. i think that fundamentally misunderstands the issue itself. but if you'd rather not talk about the issue itself fine. I think you're underestimating how big the secular pro-life group is, millennials trend to hold stronger pro-life views than their parents at the moment (http://www.gallup.com/poll/126581/Generational-Differences-Abortion-Narrow.aspx) There's a significant group of people who see this as a humanist, ends related issue rather than a religious one. those people are mostly incoherent. i have no idea what it even means to be a secular pro-lifer. it sounds like some kind of suburban naivete. millennials who have never seen a homeless person. It doesn't mean that the position doesn't exist or that it is not logical. I can not be religious but still think murder is a bad thing, why would abortion be any different in terms of the variety of opinions possible. Its good to know that only religious people can truly care for the life of a fetus.... Come on man you are better than this. I personally am against the abortion of a child i would be the father to. Im not a fan of abortion since there are a multitude of options aside from abortion for many people but I also dont believe its my place to tell people what to do about their pregnancies. Im not about to go tell people they cant have an abortion just because i would want to father a child i create. Big difference there and way too nuanced for a poll that would ask "are you against abortion?" And please note my position isnt religious. Its just that at this point in my life i would be happy being a father and eventually do want kids. Now there is more nuance to this position. I couldnt handle raising a child with a serious health issue or mental deficiency so if i had the knowledge this was the case i would personally accept abortion as an outcome for the fetus. At some point though even medical science says a fetus has some level of consciousness and brain activity so at that point humanity takes over and i would have serious concerns about aborting a fetus when that point arrives. But still imo its a parents personal decision and so i leave it with them regardless of my thoughts on the matter. Even saying you're against the abortion of your offspring is pretty contentious in its own right. Where do you stand on paternal rights in the abortion, provided the mother of your future child can't come to agreement? Being that it isn't the father's body its not really a discussion. This. If I wanted a child and was prepared to do all the spending and raising and paying and so forth and wouldn't ask for a penny in child support and the woman I got pregnant went "nope, killing it" I'd be mad. And I'd have a right to be mad. That would really suck. But at no point would I have the right to demand that she give me her body to use as an incubator for my child.
Are you not aware that once you have inseminated a womans body it now half belongs to you ?
|
On October 21 2016 06:04 oBlade wrote:
Are you talking about the DNC people that resigned?
Personally I was more thinking of the ACORN employee that got fired and had his reputation tarnished because O'Keefe deliberately misrepresented him as being involved in human trafficking.
James O'Keefe's "work" is complete bullshit and someone who's willing to make shit up and ruin peoples' lives just to fit his own fucked up narrative does not deserve to be defended.
|
On October 21 2016 06:08 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2016 06:06 KwarK wrote:On October 21 2016 06:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 21 2016 05:59 Danglars wrote:On October 21 2016 04:40 ZeromuS wrote:On October 21 2016 04:27 Trainrunnef wrote:On October 21 2016 04:17 IgnE wrote:On October 21 2016 03:55 Nyxisto wrote:On October 21 2016 03:43 IgnE wrote:On October 21 2016 03:33 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
there are a few different bases for the pro-life belief, some of which would be more satisfied with my proposal, some of which aren't.
and if they'd prefer the status quo in america, I can live with that.
I'd also disagree with some of your philosophical points, at any rate, i'm not interested in arguing the philosophy or ethics of the points with you; my point was about the potentiality for compromise with some.
i'm going to assume there weren't any additional details you wanted.
well you are the one who suggested that we should be working on a grand "compromise" and "long term plan" for abortion. i think that fundamentally misunderstands the issue itself. but if you'd rather not talk about the issue itself fine. I think you're underestimating how big the secular pro-life group is, millennials trend to hold stronger pro-life views than their parents at the moment (http://www.gallup.com/poll/126581/Generational-Differences-Abortion-Narrow.aspx) There's a significant group of people who see this as a humanist, ends related issue rather than a religious one. those people are mostly incoherent. i have no idea what it even means to be a secular pro-lifer. it sounds like some kind of suburban naivete. millennials who have never seen a homeless person. It doesn't mean that the position doesn't exist or that it is not logical. I can not be religious but still think murder is a bad thing, why would abortion be any different in terms of the variety of opinions possible. Its good to know that only religious people can truly care for the life of a fetus.... Come on man you are better than this. I personally am against the abortion of a child i would be the father to. Im not a fan of abortion since there are a multitude of options aside from abortion for many people but I also dont believe its my place to tell people what to do about their pregnancies. Im not about to go tell people they cant have an abortion just because i would want to father a child i create. Big difference there and way too nuanced for a poll that would ask "are you against abortion?" And please note my position isnt religious. Its just that at this point in my life i would be happy being a father and eventually do want kids. Now there is more nuance to this position. I couldnt handle raising a child with a serious health issue or mental deficiency so if i had the knowledge this was the case i would personally accept abortion as an outcome for the fetus. At some point though even medical science says a fetus has some level of consciousness and brain activity so at that point humanity takes over and i would have serious concerns about aborting a fetus when that point arrives. But still imo its a parents personal decision and so i leave it with them regardless of my thoughts on the matter. Even saying you're against the abortion of your offspring is pretty contentious in its own right. Where do you stand on paternal rights in the abortion, provided the mother of your future child can't come to agreement? Being that it isn't the father's body its not really a discussion. This. If I wanted a child and was prepared to do all the spending and raising and paying and so forth and wouldn't ask for a penny in child support and the woman I got pregnant went "nope, killing it" I'd be mad. And I'd have a right to be mad. That would really suck. But at no point would I have the right to demand that she give me her body to use as an incubator for my child. Are you not aware that once you have inseminated a womans body it now half belongs to you ?
On October 21 2016 06:07 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2016 06:05 Rebs wrote:On October 21 2016 06:04 oBlade wrote:On October 21 2016 05:57 Rebs wrote:On October 21 2016 05:56 oBlade wrote:On October 21 2016 05:43 ticklishmusic wrote:Drumpf used his foundation to fund guerrilla filmmaker James O’KeefeIn Wednesday’s presidential debate, Donald Drumpf claimed that new videos proved that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had “hired people” and “paid them $1,500” to “be violent, cause fights, [and] do bad things” at Drumpf rallies. He was referring to videos released this week by conservative activist James O’Keefe that purport to show pro-Clinton activists boasting of their efforts to bait Drumpf supporters into violent acts. The videos offer no evidence that Clinton or Obama were aware of or behind the alleged dirty tricks. Still, Drumpf claimed the videos exposed that a violence at a March Chicago rally was a “criminal act” and that it “was now all on tape started by her.” Drumpf neglected, however, to mention his own connection to the videos, released by James O’Keefe and his Project Veritas tax-exempt group. According to a list of charitable donations made by Drumpf‘s controversial foundation (provided to the Washington Post in April by Drumpf’s campaign), on May 13, 2015, it gave $10,000 to Project Veritas. Drumpf, who claimed in the same debate that Hillary Clinton “shouldn’t be allowed to run” for president “based on what she did with e-mails and so many other things,” was funding a convicted criminal. O’Keefe was sentenced to three years of probation, 100 hours of community service, and a $1,500 fine in 2010 after taking a plea bargain following a botched “sting” attempt at the office of then-Sen. Mary Landrieu. What’s more, there is a great deal of reason to be skeptical of the videos themselves. O’Keefe has a long history of selectively editing videos to present a false impression to the viewer. His most famous video, an attack on the now-defunct community organizing group ACORN, supposedly showed employees agreeing to help him smuggle underage prostitutes into the country. It turned out the employees later had called the police and O’Keefe eventually paid $100,000 in a settlement after being sued for surreptitious recording of someone’s voice and image. Even Glenn Beck’s conservative The Blaze slammed O’Keefe over a selectively-edited video purporting to show unethical action on the part of National Public Radio executives, faulting “ editing tactics that seem designed to intentionally lie or mislead about the material being presented. Though the latest video too has been criticized for selective editing by at least one of its subjects, two of the staffers resigned after its release. SourceCan't make these things up. Project Veritas is 501(c)(3), if people are finding a scandal here it's that if someone doesn't like Drumpf and doesn't like O'Keefe, then they must viciously dislike the combination. So now we are defending O'Keefe to ? Dayemmmm Its hard enough defending the fact that its not despicable enough to ruin peoples lives in the name of Business but also to do it in the name of social activism. Good on you man. Are you talking about the DNC people that resigned? No, I dont think you are quite familiar with O'Keefes full body of work. Thank you for clarifying what you were referring to. \
One word for you. Hopefully it will encourage you to actually research his history.
ACORN
I gave you to much credit, I thought you were being deliberately obtuse, my apologies for being vague.
On October 21 2016 06:08 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2016 06:04 oBlade wrote:
Are you talking about the DNC people that resigned? Personally I was more thinking of the ACORN employee that got fired and had his reputation tarnished because O'Keefe deliberately misrepresented him as being involved in human trafficking.
The difference between people who are aware of what they are talking about and those who arent right here.
|
On October 21 2016 06:08 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2016 06:06 KwarK wrote:On October 21 2016 06:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 21 2016 05:59 Danglars wrote:On October 21 2016 04:40 ZeromuS wrote:On October 21 2016 04:27 Trainrunnef wrote:On October 21 2016 04:17 IgnE wrote:On October 21 2016 03:55 Nyxisto wrote:On October 21 2016 03:43 IgnE wrote:On October 21 2016 03:33 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
there are a few different bases for the pro-life belief, some of which would be more satisfied with my proposal, some of which aren't.
and if they'd prefer the status quo in america, I can live with that.
I'd also disagree with some of your philosophical points, at any rate, i'm not interested in arguing the philosophy or ethics of the points with you; my point was about the potentiality for compromise with some.
i'm going to assume there weren't any additional details you wanted.
well you are the one who suggested that we should be working on a grand "compromise" and "long term plan" for abortion. i think that fundamentally misunderstands the issue itself. but if you'd rather not talk about the issue itself fine. I think you're underestimating how big the secular pro-life group is, millennials trend to hold stronger pro-life views than their parents at the moment (http://www.gallup.com/poll/126581/Generational-Differences-Abortion-Narrow.aspx) There's a significant group of people who see this as a humanist, ends related issue rather than a religious one. those people are mostly incoherent. i have no idea what it even means to be a secular pro-lifer. it sounds like some kind of suburban naivete. millennials who have never seen a homeless person. It doesn't mean that the position doesn't exist or that it is not logical. I can not be religious but still think murder is a bad thing, why would abortion be any different in terms of the variety of opinions possible. Its good to know that only religious people can truly care for the life of a fetus.... Come on man you are better than this. I personally am against the abortion of a child i would be the father to. Im not a fan of abortion since there are a multitude of options aside from abortion for many people but I also dont believe its my place to tell people what to do about their pregnancies. Im not about to go tell people they cant have an abortion just because i would want to father a child i create. Big difference there and way too nuanced for a poll that would ask "are you against abortion?" And please note my position isnt religious. Its just that at this point in my life i would be happy being a father and eventually do want kids. Now there is more nuance to this position. I couldnt handle raising a child with a serious health issue or mental deficiency so if i had the knowledge this was the case i would personally accept abortion as an outcome for the fetus. At some point though even medical science says a fetus has some level of consciousness and brain activity so at that point humanity takes over and i would have serious concerns about aborting a fetus when that point arrives. But still imo its a parents personal decision and so i leave it with them regardless of my thoughts on the matter. Even saying you're against the abortion of your offspring is pretty contentious in its own right. Where do you stand on paternal rights in the abortion, provided the mother of your future child can't come to agreement? Being that it isn't the father's body its not really a discussion. This. If I wanted a child and was prepared to do all the spending and raising and paying and so forth and wouldn't ask for a penny in child support and the woman I got pregnant went "nope, killing it" I'd be mad. And I'd have a right to be mad. That would really suck. But at no point would I have the right to demand that she give me her body to use as an incubator for my child. Are you not aware that once you have inseminated a womans body it now half belongs to you ?
No, it entirely belongs to that person in the view of conservatives. It's why the right is so terrified of white women being impregnated by black men against the will of the husband, inventing their whole "cuck" racial slur.
|
On October 21 2016 06:08 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2016 06:08 Rebs wrote:On October 21 2016 06:06 KwarK wrote:On October 21 2016 06:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 21 2016 05:59 Danglars wrote:On October 21 2016 04:40 ZeromuS wrote:On October 21 2016 04:27 Trainrunnef wrote:On October 21 2016 04:17 IgnE wrote:On October 21 2016 03:55 Nyxisto wrote:On October 21 2016 03:43 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
well you are the one who suggested that we should be working on a grand "compromise" and "long term plan" for abortion. i think that fundamentally misunderstands the issue itself. but if you'd rather not talk about the issue itself fine.
I think you're underestimating how big the secular pro-life group is, millennials trend to hold stronger pro-life views than their parents at the moment (http://www.gallup.com/poll/126581/Generational-Differences-Abortion-Narrow.aspx) There's a significant group of people who see this as a humanist, ends related issue rather than a religious one. those people are mostly incoherent. i have no idea what it even means to be a secular pro-lifer. it sounds like some kind of suburban naivete. millennials who have never seen a homeless person. It doesn't mean that the position doesn't exist or that it is not logical. I can not be religious but still think murder is a bad thing, why would abortion be any different in terms of the variety of opinions possible. Its good to know that only religious people can truly care for the life of a fetus.... Come on man you are better than this. I personally am against the abortion of a child i would be the father to. Im not a fan of abortion since there are a multitude of options aside from abortion for many people but I also dont believe its my place to tell people what to do about their pregnancies. Im not about to go tell people they cant have an abortion just because i would want to father a child i create. Big difference there and way too nuanced for a poll that would ask "are you against abortion?" And please note my position isnt religious. Its just that at this point in my life i would be happy being a father and eventually do want kids. Now there is more nuance to this position. I couldnt handle raising a child with a serious health issue or mental deficiency so if i had the knowledge this was the case i would personally accept abortion as an outcome for the fetus. At some point though even medical science says a fetus has some level of consciousness and brain activity so at that point humanity takes over and i would have serious concerns about aborting a fetus when that point arrives. But still imo its a parents personal decision and so i leave it with them regardless of my thoughts on the matter. Even saying you're against the abortion of your offspring is pretty contentious in its own right. Where do you stand on paternal rights in the abortion, provided the mother of your future child can't come to agreement? Being that it isn't the father's body its not really a discussion. This. If I wanted a child and was prepared to do all the spending and raising and paying and so forth and wouldn't ask for a penny in child support and the woman I got pregnant went "nope, killing it" I'd be mad. And I'd have a right to be mad. That would really suck. But at no point would I have the right to demand that she give me her body to use as an incubator for my child. Are you not aware that once you have inseminated a womans body it now half belongs to you ? Show nested quote +On October 21 2016 06:07 oBlade wrote:On October 21 2016 06:05 Rebs wrote:On October 21 2016 06:04 oBlade wrote:On October 21 2016 05:57 Rebs wrote:On October 21 2016 05:56 oBlade wrote:On October 21 2016 05:43 ticklishmusic wrote:Drumpf used his foundation to fund guerrilla filmmaker James O’KeefeIn Wednesday’s presidential debate, Donald Drumpf claimed that new videos proved that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had “hired people” and “paid them $1,500” to “be violent, cause fights, [and] do bad things” at Drumpf rallies. He was referring to videos released this week by conservative activist James O’Keefe that purport to show pro-Clinton activists boasting of their efforts to bait Drumpf supporters into violent acts. The videos offer no evidence that Clinton or Obama were aware of or behind the alleged dirty tricks. Still, Drumpf claimed the videos exposed that a violence at a March Chicago rally was a “criminal act” and that it “was now all on tape started by her.” Drumpf neglected, however, to mention his own connection to the videos, released by James O’Keefe and his Project Veritas tax-exempt group. According to a list of charitable donations made by Drumpf‘s controversial foundation (provided to the Washington Post in April by Drumpf’s campaign), on May 13, 2015, it gave $10,000 to Project Veritas. Drumpf, who claimed in the same debate that Hillary Clinton “shouldn’t be allowed to run” for president “based on what she did with e-mails and so many other things,” was funding a convicted criminal. O’Keefe was sentenced to three years of probation, 100 hours of community service, and a $1,500 fine in 2010 after taking a plea bargain following a botched “sting” attempt at the office of then-Sen. Mary Landrieu. What’s more, there is a great deal of reason to be skeptical of the videos themselves. O’Keefe has a long history of selectively editing videos to present a false impression to the viewer. His most famous video, an attack on the now-defunct community organizing group ACORN, supposedly showed employees agreeing to help him smuggle underage prostitutes into the country. It turned out the employees later had called the police and O’Keefe eventually paid $100,000 in a settlement after being sued for surreptitious recording of someone’s voice and image. Even Glenn Beck’s conservative The Blaze slammed O’Keefe over a selectively-edited video purporting to show unethical action on the part of National Public Radio executives, faulting “ editing tactics that seem designed to intentionally lie or mislead about the material being presented. Though the latest video too has been criticized for selective editing by at least one of its subjects, two of the staffers resigned after its release. SourceCan't make these things up. Project Veritas is 501(c)(3), if people are finding a scandal here it's that if someone doesn't like Drumpf and doesn't like O'Keefe, then they must viciously dislike the combination. So now we are defending O'Keefe to ? Dayemmmm Its hard enough defending the fact that its not despicable enough to ruin peoples lives in the name of Business but also to do it in the name of social activism. Good on you man. Are you talking about the DNC people that resigned? No, I dont think you are quite familiar with O'Keefes full body of work. Thank you for clarifying what you were referring to. \ One word for you. Hopefully it will encourage you to actually research his history. ACORN I gave you to much credit, I thought you were being deliberately obtuse, my apologies for being vague. Show nested quote +On October 21 2016 06:08 TheYango wrote:On October 21 2016 06:04 oBlade wrote:
Are you talking about the DNC people that resigned? Personally I was more thinking of the ACORN employee that got fired and had his reputation tarnished because O'Keefe deliberately misrepresented him as being involved in human trafficking. The difference between people who are aware of what they are talking about and those who arent right here.
So you must have been mistaken when you characterized me as defending people's lives being destroyed.
|
Also, the fact that Breitbart hired the guy for those stupid ACORN videos even well after they were proven to be intentionally misleading pretty much tells you everything you need to know about both parties.
|
United States41984 Posts
Well you wouldn't hire an honest investigator to look into an organization that isn't doing anything illegal, what's the point in exonerating them for free? That wouldn't make sense Yango. They had to hire O'Keefe to get anything of value to them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
