• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

So what was accomplished with Cecile Richards yesterday?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
They didn't invite her initially, obviously for a good reason, since she handed their asses to them. They eventually ended up inviting her because there was an outcry about having a hearing on PP without inviting PP to respond.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
She insisted that the videos were doctored....they weren't. Coalfire (forensic analysis and cybersecurity company) determined that the CMP video files “are authentic and show no evidence of manipulation or editing.”
Click to expand...

That's been debunked so many times as to not bear repeating any of it.

The Congressional circus with Richards was orchestrated to keep the rubes on the hook, you obviously being one of them.

Even though evidence contrary to your belief has been introduced many time in discussions here you simply refuse to address any of it, much preferring to hold to extremely well propagandized belief.

It's obvious that you believe abortion is wrong. You may not believe that the ends justify the means, but the people twiddling with your head certainly do. They discarded their honesty & integrity long ago. That happens when fools think they're on a mission from God.
 
Also learned that Republicans are against patient choice. They want to limit what providers the patients can choose to see. Of course if Medicare did that, they would cry "Death Panels!"
 
Jhhnn said:
That's been debunked so many times as to not bear repeating any of it.

The Congressional circus with Richards was orchestrated to keep the rubes on the hook, you obviously being one of them.

Even though evidence contrary to your belief has been introduced many time in discussions here you simply refuse to address any of it, much preferring to hold to extremely well propagandized belief.

It's obvious that you believe abortion is wrong. You may not believe that the ends justify the means, but the people twiddling with your head certainly do. They discarded their honesty & integrity long ago. That happens when fools think they're on a mission from God.
Click to expand...
Results of the Coalfire analysis were just released dumbass.
 
Newell Steamer said:
Yeah, again, you guys suck at war as well,...
g-cvr-080501-mission-10a.grid-6x2.jpg


Sit this one out fella - you ain't going anywhere.
Click to expand...

That warship was launched well before this new war. The USS Cleveland Steamer is setting sail as we type. Ready to dump all over everything.
 
eskimospy said:
Can you explain why you think the videos were not altered?
Click to expand...

Well, what do you mean by altered? Everything gets altered when recorded - why do you think people say; "Hey, is that what I sound like?" when they hear their voice?

You just don't get it.

Here, look at this line graph;
EHNR8.png


Get back to me when you want to have an intelligent and reasonable discussion.
 
Why is it when I search for "coalfire planned parenthood" the only hits I get are from right wing websites?

Surely doc you have a link to your claim from a reputable news site?
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
Are you aware that the initial "investigation" was funded by Planned Parenthood? Or that the Coalfire analysis was just released which shows there was NO EVIDENCE OF MANIPULATION?
Click to expand...

Do you realize that the Coalfire analysis was funded by a right wing anti abortion group? Lol.

That's amazing that you discount the first analysis because it was funded by an interested group and then uncritically accept a second analysis funded by an interested group.

Can you explain why you ignore the first and accept the second? That smacks of motivated reasoning to me. It seems that the proper course would be to either accept both analyses and say that it is contested, or accept neither.

Either way accusing Richards of being a liar would be wrong. Will you retract that?
 
MomentsofSanity said:
Well if who commissioned it invalidates the analysis who commissioned the Coalfire analysis?
Click to expand...
Although there were gaps of “non-pertinent footage,” such as for “waiting,” “adjusting recording equipment” and “restroom breaks”...the video was not manipulated to alter the context and content of the discussions in any way. If you disagree, please provide specific examples of where the videos were manipulated to alter context of the conversations depicted.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
Although there were gaps of “non-pertinent footage,” such as for “waiting,” “adjusting recording equipment” and “restroom breaks”...the video was not manipulated to alter the context and content of the discussions in any way. If you disagree, please provide specific examples of where the videos were manipulated to alter context of the conversations depicted.
Click to expand...

No I'm asking you if Planned Parenthood funded the analysis that Eskimo linked and you immediately disregard it based on that, why should the one you link be given any consideration given who funded it?
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
Are you aware that the initial "investigation" was funded by Planned Parenthood? Or that the Coalfire analysis was just released which shows there was NO EVIDENCE OF MANIPULATION?
Click to expand...

...and who funded the Coalfire "analysis"? :hmm:

EDIT: Shit, I'm late to the "DSF is a fucking moron" party...per usual.
 
And you still have not answered my question, then how did the video of the woman having a miscarriage get in there?

You know the video that Carly made a huge fuss about in the debate.
 
MomentsofSanity said:
No I'm asking you if Planned Parenthood funded the analysis that Eskimo linked and you immediately disregard it based on that, why should the one you link be given any consideration given who funded it?
Click to expand...

Careful now, you're about to run into a wall of cognitive dissonance. (although to be honest I am somewhat interested to see what excuse he concocts to uncritically accept one and outright dismiss the other)
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
Are you aware that the initial "investigation" was funded by Planned Parenthood? Or that the Coalfire analysis was just released which shows there was NO EVIDENCE OF MANIPULATION?
Click to expand...

eskimospy said:
Do you realize that the Coalfire analysis was funded by a right wing anti abortion group? Lol.

That's amazing that you discount the first analysis because it was funded by an interested group and then uncritically accept a second analysis funded by an interested group.

Can you explain why you ignore the first and accept the second? That smacks of motivated reasoning to me. It seems that the proper course would be to either accept both analyses and say that it is contested, or accept neither.

Either way accusing Richards of being a liar would be wrong. Will you retract that?
Click to expand...

This should be interesting
 
MomentsofSanity said:
No I'm asking you if Planned Parenthood funded the analysis that Eskimo linked and you immediately disregard it based on that, why should the one you link be given any consideration given who funded it?
Click to expand...
And you never questioned the funding source for a study? That aside, does either study show any evidence that the taped discussions were manipulated to alter content or context? If so, please supply specific examples.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top