AP's Crary Does All He Can to Instill Doubt About LiveAction.org's Planned Parenthood Sting Video
Poor Associated Press National Writer David Crary. He doesn't seem to like what LiveAction.org did at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Perth Amboy, New Jersey in mid-January, and wants to make sure his readers leave his writeup with some level of doubt about the legitimacy of the group's undercover video showing a clinic manager willing to provide assistance to a pimp for his underage hookers.
His report yesterday, with an accompanying headline seemingly designed to avoid identifying the video's content opened thusly (bold is mine):
New video seeks to discredit Planned Parenthood
An anti-abortion group Tuesday released undercover video taken in its latest attempt to discredit Planned Parenthood - footage of operatives posing as a pimp and a prostitute seeking health services at a New Jersey clinic.
The group releasing the video, Live Action, said it depicted a clinic employee offering to help cover up a sex ring so that its prostitutes could receive health services. Planned Parenthood said it had promptly notified law enforcement authorities after the visit, but it also said it was investigating whether the clinic employee in the video may have violated some of the organization's policies.
Just in case readers didn't get the point of "said it depicted" the first time, Crary tries to insert doubt elsewhere in his report as follows:
On Tuesday, Live Action released a video that it said was taken Jan. 13 at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Perth Amboy, N.J.
In the video, a woman identified as the clinic manager converses with a man and a woman posing as sex traffickers regarding their interest in accessing contraception, abortions and sexually transmitted-disease testing for underage prostitutes.
As depicted in the video, the clinic manager advises that the underage girls could lie about their age to lessen the chance of triggering an investigation once they sought health services.
"For the most part, we want as little information as possible," the employee says, according to the video.
The video also depicts the employee suggesting that prostitutes could get cheaper contraception by claiming they were students.
Yeah, just kind of play along that they're students - we want to make it look as legit as possible," the woman identified as the clinic manager says.
Live Action said it was making available both edited and unedited versions of the video.
We wouldn't want anybody thinking that this video is 100% real -- even though Planned Parenthood has made no attempt to deny that the incident took place -- now do we?
The video's location and the identity of the clinic's manager should been easily verifiable. There seems to be a pretty good chance that the name of the manager was known by the time Crary wrote his report.
Crary & Co. at the AP are going to have to work up another "please don't read this, and if you do, please don't believe it" writeup, as LiveAction released a second video "it says" is from a Richmond, Virginia Planned Parenthood clinic.
The AP headline for what is for the moment a brief story relating to the Richmond video is: "Anti-abortion group video targets Virginia clinic." Gosh, I thought "targeting" people or organizations was supposed to be a bad thing.
Like it or not, it seems that David Crary & Co. might be on this story for a while. LiveAction.org's second video, like the first, ends with "To Be Continued."
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
- Tom Blumer's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Is the third time the charm?
Submitted by Ashrak on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 4:38pm.
I wonder how many times they have to get scooped with video by Citizen bloggers before they see that their job is indeed being done by others and their hackery is causing the extinction of newsprint all over the country? When will media types figure it out?
But you did read,
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 5:55pm.
that he updated his article. My guess, one that will without doubt be scrutinized soon: He wrote the article with only Live Action's claims as a source. Then Planned Parenthood responds and instead of rewriting the whole thing (it's like 8:30 pm he wants to get home!) he just includes their response.
EDIT: the article was released earlier that day. So forget about the getting home part.
Since when is unedited video a "claim"?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 6:25pm.
Watch the full unedited version if you have any doubts.
So now we're not supposed to believe our own eyes and ears?
It doesn't matter.
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 7:04pm.
Until there is an independent party confirming the story it is a claim. Otherwise you can't exclude the possibility that everything is staged.
And I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that I didn't believe the story.
Sure Trog, Lila Rose is a suspicious character,
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 7:20pm.
and has a history of shady stings ala James O'Keefe.
Cmon.
Do you need an independent party to confirm it's raining outside?
Just admit the obvious. They effed up. For the umpteenth time.
But let's look at it another way:
You're CEO of a $300 million corporation. Your field offices have been scammed numerous times WITH THE SAME EXACT SCENARIO. Do you not take steps to notify all office managers to avoid LIKE THE PLAGUE any "clients" presenting scenarios like this?
If you were CEO, what the hell would you do? Nothing? Well PP's leadership has done nothing except whine about entrapment rather than fixing the obvious problem.
They are being funded, at least partially, by my tax dollars (I don't know about yours) and this abuse of children must be stopped.
→ SOL
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 7:27pm.
Notice how Troggy, a double-minded person, tries to convey that he neither believes nor disbelieves the story.
He's Pee-Wee Herman ("I know you are, but what am I")
Step carefully in video stores he frequents.
Cool - Balboa 3:16...it's spreading like wildfire!
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 7:30pm.
I'm non-commital on it, but I still reserve judgment until I haven't seen it.
→ Absotively
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 7:36pm.
And posolutely!
CA
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 8:16pm.
Where have I conveyed that I don't believe the story. Long before I started commenting PP admitted there was wrongdoing. I proposed a theory why the AP journalist wrote the story the way he did.
I don't.
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 7:42pm.
But please reconsider what I was writing about.
→ SOL
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 7:40pm.
Notice Troggy doesn't realize that $300 million corporation you're referring to IS Planned Parenthood.
I'm thinking he and his life partner don't much care about PP anyway.
CA
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 7:43pm.
Notice that you make things up.
Cool: hmmm... clam roll aficionado?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 8:29pm.
I still don't like that place. Maybe it's D-F-A's tagline:
"When you're here, you're gay."
→ Troggy
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 5:49pm.
You're not at all surprised the lead isn't "New video seeks to expose PP"? instead of "seeks to discredit PP"
Maybe Planned Parenthood is proud of encouraging people to lie about themselves.
Well the mission was to discredit
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 5:56pm.
wasn't it? But you are right it's not very objective.
→ Maybe, Troggy
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 5:59pm.
Was Larry Sinclair's message aimed at exposing or discrediting Obama?
I just changed my mind.
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 6:07pm.
The word "discredit" is OK. Their target is, that they admit, PP as an organization. What they were able to obtain is that at least one employee gave illegal advice. To infer that the organization at large condones or is responsible for such methods is the part where they discredit.
Concerning Larry Sinclair
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 6:07pm.
I'm not familiar with this story.
→ Imagine that, Troggy
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 6:14pm.
Why am I not surprised? But the MSM was all over the rumor that John McCain might be having an affair with a campaign staffer.
You're certainly one of those useful types.
Good that you mention it
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 6:17pm.
because that is also a story I'm not familiar with.
→ Great
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 6:26pm.
So basically you come here to troll and refuse to learn anything.
Most everybody else would have googled the events by now. But you're just another spoonfed lazy liberal.
I've absolutely no interest in whether
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 6:32pm.
McCain had an affair or not. That's his business.
→ Great, Troggy
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 6:45pm.
And you absolutely believe such rumors, when printed in major news sources, during the campaign, have absolutely no effect on the vote.
No.
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 6:51pm.
Why would you assume something like that? The power of libel (assuming they were just rumors) is a well known force in politics, since roman times at least. It wouldn't persuade me though. And not only because I don't vote.
→ Then I'll leave you alone, Troggy
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 6:51pm.
If you don't vote, you're useless. I'd prefer you stay that way.
The utilitarian argument.
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 7:01pm.
Interesting. But even if I voted, which I can't, at least for US elections, you have to do better to convince me to vote the right way.
trogster---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 6:27pm.
you sound like every other liberal apologist. It appears you are trying to hide your very liberal bias behind the "let's be fair, you don't really know what the writer meant". That is hogwash.Positively Balbonian,
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 6:30pm.
if you ask me.
Balbonian---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 6:35pm.
Ten ring. Great shot.MD
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 6:35pm.
And you behave like every political activist does: Rush to judgement. Condemn without considering alternatives.
look who's misbehaving*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 7:11pm.
You accuse Matthew of rushing to judgements without considering alternatives. Interesting since you admitted you are incapable of making any decisions since "you do not vote". I hope that means you do not qualify as a registered American voter.
what?
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 7:33pm.
How does the decision not to vote demonstrate an incapability to make decisions? BTW: With your logical fallacy you've managed to denigrate that large portion of the US electorate that doesn't participate in presedential elections (many of them conservatives I assume). You do understand that if A implies B B doesn't have to imply A, don't you?
And you can rest assured: Having neither US residency nor citizenship I can't participate in US elections (whether legally or illegally).
And yet you do your best.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 3:39am.
Day after day you come here and do your best to influence and sway those that can vote. I lie about global warming so as to influence the vote on cap and trade, knowing full well you have money tied up in carbon credits. You try to sway opinion against BP because you are shorting the stock. You try to influence opinion on Egypt so you can clean up with oil futures. And on and on it goes.
OK Vet
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 4:00am.
You used "you" seven times and "I" once. Although you might be under the impression you used all of them with reference to me, your subconsciousness just tricked you into admitting that you lie about GW.
Yours sincerely,
Troglodyt the hobby psychologist
Whatever nwahs.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 4:51am.
It is all you have ever had on me. Pointing out typos. Meanwhile, you are an anti-American, antisemite, & an Arab apologist that wants us to lose in Afghanistan, wanted us to lose in Iraq, denies Israel's right to exist, and delights in the turmoil going on in the Middle East right now.
You come to a conservative political site that points out liberal bias and claim you are not trying to influence conservative political opinon. You lie. You lie a lot. It is why you are called the Little Boy Liar.
So go on Little Boy. You found a typo. Here is a blue typo ribbon for the good little troll.
Hey nwahs, where is your buddly balboa and j. frank wilson? And where is that long lost buddy arkansaszippers? Remember that time you open mouth kissed him here on NewsBusters? troglodippers. Man you got yoursefl some silly friends. Who is smarter, you or j. frank wilson that loves you so much?
Pray Little Boy Liar. Pray and Chant to the Troll Gawds. Ohmmmmm-nilly-nilly-whack-Ohmmmmm.. Ohmmmmm-nilly-nilly-whack-Ohmmmmm.. Ohmmmmm-nilly-nilly-whack-Ohmmmmm.
26. Attack typos and ignore the content of the message.
Point out your opponent's grammatical flaws and spelling errors. By doing this you can concentrate on form while ignoring substance. This is a very handy method to discredit your opponent and by extension his position, without once again exposing your ignorance of the issues begin discussed in the thread.
vetting Vet
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 8:22am.
My claim: It wasn't merely a typo, but a freudian slip. But keep pretending.
Whatever balboadyt
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:26am.
You are not going to get my goat.
I got to your gut already.
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:28am.
That's fine enough for me.
Pack Sand last word troll. Pack it hard. Pack it tight.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 12:03pm.
Now you can have your last word at any expense balboa troll.
What logical fallacy?
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 1:03pm.
There was no lie in my post because I quoted your comment.The "logical fallacy" you refer to is a quote from your own posts. You are not a resident nor a citizen of the US yet come to NB to spew your one line lies.
First, we are not proud that a large percentage of Americans do not vote. We are aware that many americans are too self-absorbed to even bother to educate themselves and participate in the a process that many others throughout the world die fighting for that right. A right that many here do not appreciate since they have never suffered the alternative. Those same Americans who are too irresponsible to study issues and vote for our leadership are the same people who exercise irresponsible behavior in other aspects of their lives. They are the same people who are largely responsible for this entitlement mentality or elitist snobbery . People like you use that argument to continue class distinction and policy divide. Some of your comments are the most wishy washy nonsense. A search of the internet and of course here at NB, are many examples that a majority of Americans do respect the right to vote, a peaceful and respectful transfer of power, and struggle everyday to educate ourselves on important issues here and abroad. If you are unable to see the connection between the forces that are attemptiing to instill a world wide power and the masses of "useful idiots" then many in Europe and the Middle East will once again repeat your own history exampled by man deadly conflicts in your 5000 yr old culture.
Several of your posts show you are unaware of major world wide issues and you show no interest or outright contempt. This attitude of "as long as it doesnt affect me" or "it doesnt serve my interests" is a prime example that Germans haven't learned much from your own history. That attitude is how Hitler was able to gain such power. Those of us here at NB have read history, including yours, and we are fighting daily to make sure we do not repeat Germany's passive acceptance of a dictator that killed millions of people.
The US is 234 yrs old, unlike the stagnant dependent parasites in Europe, we have learned from Europe's mistakes and we will fight not to repeat them here. Surely you have already met a number of commentors at NB who are not as uneducated as you believe and will continue to call you on your lies.
My suggestion to you is to avoid The Vet and MatthewDean and hang out with jfrankie.
That is a long one.
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 1:33pm.
There was no lie in my post because I quoted your comment.The "logical fallacy" you refer to is a quote from your own posts. You are not a resident nor a citizen of the US yet come to NB to spew your one line lies.
You quoted me on saying that I do not vote and then made the absurd claim that therefor I'm unable to make decisions. That's your fallacy.
Secondly I've to add that besides self-absorption there are other reasons not to vote, although admittedly this is probably not the most important one. If you are really interested in why I don't vote PM me. People using that argument to continue "class distinction and policy divide" are certainly not like me.
Some of your comments are the most wishy washy nonsense.
Here you are certainly right. But that usually only happens after running in circles with other posters for a while.
Rest assured that I do respect your and other people's right to vote and peaceful transfer of power. In deference to you I think that useful idiots can be found both within the masses that don't vote and that vote. On second thought, you might probably agree with me on this one.
Several of your posts show you are unaware of major world wide issues and you show no interest or outright contempt.
Which ones?
I skip the last part, but will tell you: Thank you for one of the less condescending posts adressed at me.
trogster---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 6:44pm.
Actually, I don't operate that way.
I just happen to believe what my eyes and ears tell me; unlike you libs who allow talking points to guide your life.
MD
And at the same time
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 6:48pm.
you shut down your brain when it comes to considering alternatives explaining what your eyes and ears told you.
Let me think of a way, trogster, to put this to you clearly---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 7:02pm.
Ah, I have it:
As usual, by intimating that I act in a prejudicial manner because I do not agree with you, you demonstrate that you are full of shit.
MD
Groce.
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 7:05pm.
Now go and wash your mouth with soap.
Thanks, MD, I just spit out my Guinness
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 7:06pm.
!
SoL---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 7:14pm.
;o)Now I know what these dopes
Submitted by ant on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 7:34pm.
Now I know what these dopes learn in journalism school. It's how and where to place disingenuous words and phrases into a story in order to defend your favorites and cast doubt where it does not otherwise exist. But 4 years for that?
Message to trog@ comment #26, Searching for alternative answers despite what your eyes and ears have told you is why you liberals end up with the pretzel-like mind-twisting illogic you do. Examples abound. The simplest answer is probably the best.
And I think I proposed
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 7:41pm.
a very simple answer.
trog
Submitted by ant on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 8:06pm.
The writer uses such phrases as,"depicted in the video" and "according to the video". One has to assume he watched the video, if he did not and was only referring to LIveActions claims as you seem to infer, then maybe professionalism (snicker) would dictate that the author watch the video before writing an article about the video. Just sayin'.
Honestly
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 8:15pm.
Could you explain to me how it seems that I am infering that he didn't watch the video and referred to Live Action's claims? I don't know it for sure, but I assume he watched it.
I'm referring to your first
Submitted by ant on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 8:32pm.
I'm referring to your first post, because I'm trying not to get side-tracked here. You wrote, "He wrote the article with only LiveActions claims as a source." If you consider a video a claim that's fine, but a video is more than a claim to me. You have to consider the gist of the NB article in that he casts doubts on a video as if what he is watching is only "alleged". This is a deliberate use of misleading words in a media world where Ronald Reagan's ballerina son's "allegations" as to Reagans mental capacity are called "revelations" or Clyburns 'spitting' and n****r accusations are reported as facts for days.
As I have written above,
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 9:08pm.
without an independent party confirming such a story, there would have been the possibility that the whole video was staged. Without such confirmation the purported identity of the persons involved, the place etc. would be claims. The difference to purely verbal claims is that if you have video footage you can easily verify that what is shown is indeed nonfictional.
troglydyte....staged videos are only for the professionals.
Submitted by NavyBuckeye on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 5:34am.
Just ask ABC and John Quinones. They staged fake Mexicans and used an actor to potray a security gaurd to obtain people's reactions to illegal immigration in Arizona.
Their potrayal of the illegal was very stereotypical and rather unbecoming of professionals. They set the whole thing up and then ran the story on how biggoted people in the diner were and how this anti immigration law (that is what they called it.....if they were being professional and truthful they would call it an anti illegal immigration law).
Maybe instead of trying to discredit a video that shows what is going on in an orginization they should spend thier time and power trying to figure out why the O is taking and defending zeolous and radical muslims in Egypt. They pose much more of a threat to world peace and U.S interests than a blogger trying to show the misdoings of Planned Parenthood.
Unbelievable
Submitted by ant on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:12am.
This woman in the NJ PP has supposedly been fired. Even before she was, you have to ask yourself; Would a woman working for Planned Parenthood agree to participate in a staged video designed to make herself and PP look bad? If you consider that a possibility you have become so open-minded that your brain has fallen out.
If the other possibility is that she did not take part. Then you have to understand something about Live Action. Being on the "right", they have to know how biased the media is and how the left of all stripes will circle the wagons in defense of any fellow moonbats, no matter how despicable their actions. Live Action knows this and they know they will be scrutinized intensely and lied about and they know they will have to defend themselves despite the fact they are not the party committing the crime. Now, do you really think they would go through all that just to perpetrate a fraud and stage a video? Give me a friggin' break.
To answer your question
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:19am.
No. I don't think that. Except if they were prepared to be the laughing stock of everybody on the right and left.
Well what do you think?
Submitted by ant on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:27am.
Well what do you think? Besides highly of yourself? Anything?
What do you want to know
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:32am.
?
This need you have for an
Submitted by ant on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:59am.
This need you have for an impartial third party to judge the merits of the video. Good luck with that by the way. In what way do you suspect it might be staged? Why would they? It's not for profit, it can't be the desire to have the MSM stick a flashlight up your ass and call you a liar, it ain't because PP took Ms. Rose's parking space. Why so much doubt that it was filmed simply to expose criminal behavior by a group supported by tax-dollars? Nobody seemed to mind when Joe the plumbers past was snooped into for the crime of disagreeing with the messiah, but investigate PP? Oh no, that' soooooo improper!
ant
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 11:31am.
I don't have this need you are talking about. I don't supect it was staged. I don't doubt that they wanted to expose criminal behaviour by PP employees.
Posted by trog, Thursday at
Submitted by ant on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 1:35pm.
Posted by trog, Thursday at 8:08 pm;
"As I have written above, without an independent party confirming such a story, there would have been the possibility that the whole video was staged...etc,etc..".
You are a shining example of a lying leftist but you would have made a terrible lawyer.
You seem to have
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 1:58pm.
a memory like a goldfish. What was I writing about the whole time? Hint: Not my opinion concerning the authenticity of the video.
I won't reply in kind.
Well Trog*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 2:12pm.
You may finally have gotten one thing right. "Idon't doubt that they wanted to expose criminal behavior by PP employees".
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/pro-life-group-releases-three-more-planned-parenthood-videos/
BTW: Ms Lila Rose has received hundreds of serious death threats since the release of the first video and is now in hiding. Wait til these hit the media. The butchers who are willing to support the murder of innocent children and support sex slaves who are minors certainly seem to me to be capable of "serious" death threats. Serious threats to our humanity when there are those in our society who approve of such butchery and enslavement and call themselves "compassionate" liberals.
trogster---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 8:04pm.
You really should lay off using phrases like "logical fallacy" as a means of impressing people with your argumentative expertise; it does absolutely nothing to balance out the rest of the inanities, liberal or not, that you spout.
A decision not to vote may well be a 'decision' as far as the actual definition of the word, but you quickly gloss over any possible implications of a decision not to vote by acting like pontificating about the word 'decision' somehow guarantees that there will be no after the fact consequences to be dealt with as a result of failing to 'decide' whether or not to vote.
cajun denigrated no one, even though you make yourself an obvious target with every liberal troll post of yours.
MD
Ah, your desire to read things
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 9:25pm.
into my post, that aren't there is truly stunning. I did not have to gloss over anything, because I wasn't asked and didn't see the necessity to clarify my decision.
Who around here is impressed by a phrase like "logical fallacy"?
And thx for being able to wait 3 paragraphs till labeling me or my post as liberal. Perhaps there is some hope you will overcome this neurotic tick of yours.
trogster---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 11:52pm.
you really should lighten up on accusing others of practicing what you preach. As a liberal, of course you never see any necessity in clarifying a decision. If you know no one is impressed wth the phrase "logical fallacy", why use it? It is as outdated for effect as is "I just threw up in my mouth a little", and "epic fail". Are you denying you are a liberal? That would be novel. Matter of fact, you are so obviously liberal that "neurotic tick" would be a perfect username for you. Actually, though you erroneously used "tick" in place of "tic", either would be perfect for you; as one refers to a blood-sucking arachnid, and the other refers to local and habitual spasmodic motion of particular muscles. All hail Super Tick, nee troglodyt. Or would you prefer, all rise for The Titanic Tic? Whichever suits, traipse on down the thread and spasm out your next post, you Teutonic Twit. (with apologies to Mel Brooks and Harvey Korman)17 words and there it is:
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 4:16am.
"liberal". You can't hold it back, can you?
If you know no one is impressed wth the phrase "logical fallacy", why use it?
Coming from you, that question explains a lot, especially why content and form are so out of sync in your posts.
Well trogster---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 5:37am.
While I would much prefer to refer to you using a different seven letter word, like, say, asswipe; the good people running the show prefer otherwise, so I generally try to acquiesce.
If you are going to say you are not a liberal, you certainly give a good impression of one.
If you are going to say you are not a troll, I shall call you a liar.
If it improves your sense of self to stand upon a pedestal and comment about the content, form, and syncopation inherent in my posts; why, you are surely free to do so.
Es macht nicht; as your own posts reveal you to be a poseur, nothing more, at cobbling together coherent messages, despite the inner voice telling you of your self importance and great intellect.
Ah tells ya, it jest ain't so, troll breath.
MD
It's good to know
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 9:55am.
you restrain yourself. That tells me you take all of this far too seriously.
And no doubt in your eyes I am what you want me to be. So it is "liberal", "troll", "asswipe" and "poseur" then.
Some tutoring in German is necessary though extremely nitpicky: Es macht nichts.
Yes we take it seriously Little Boy Liar.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:16am.
This is OUR COUNTRY. Not yours. BUTT OUT of our business.
Only a Fake German idiot would say something about citizens of other countries taking their business or politics seriously.
Now tell us again how much smarter you are than balboa or j. frank wilson. Tell us Fake German with the fake Mathmatics degree. Tell us how smart you are and yet you manage to say balboa style crap day after day.
You haven't given me one good reason.
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:25am.
And again you have to keep your narrative straight, at least if your complaints are supposed to be taken seriously. If you have anything else to offer other than being annoyed, I might consider to withdraw from public life on NB.
Whatever antisemitic anti-American last word troll
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 12:08pm.
Pack sand you lying little snit balboa troll. Now tell us how smart you are again. Then call our President a liar, call our fellow citizens torturerers, diss on our soldiers, hate on Israel, and apoligize for every murdering Arab terrorist. The come here 2 days and tell us you just do it because you are bored and it is all in fun.
trog
Submitted by ant on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:23am.
How can you say matthewdean takes this "all too seriously"? When you live in a time when people like yourself will rush to the defense of a group(with the governments blessing) that not only encourage the termination of babies but accomodates the trafficing of under-age sex-slaves who may or may not be pregnant, abused, drugged, and diseased. The day people like matthewdean don't need to control their anger or don't take it too "seriously" is the day the world is truly screwed.
And where do you get the impression
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:26am.
that I defend PP from? Quote please.
Dropped that final "s", trogster---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 2:17am.
as a means of showing you that you aren't worth the full magilla. In actuality, though, how you are perceived on this site is pretty much a result of how you present yourself. Any recriminations directed your way are most certainly warranted. If you believe me to be in error, count up your loyal supporters and see if you can prove me wrong with sheer numbers.Attention Shoppers: Trog is now on overtime,
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 8:46pm.
so please keep your posts brief.
The business agent may pull him at any time.
Planned Parenthood Can't Cut off THAT Much of it's Business!
Submitted by Pharmer on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 12:20am.
Why Can't Dear Cecile tell the managers to avoid doing business with shady characters?
Because TOO MUCH OF THEIR BUSINESS IS OF THAT TYPE!.
Yep....... underage sex partners is the bread and butter of the abortion business. They might have to outsource to other countries if they cut off all that business here.
OOPS, they already ARE outsourcing!
KB
Now read about Planned Parenthood bogusly Stinging prolife Pharmacists.
Now if that was a tobacco exec?
Submitted by stunned on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:57am.
Imagine a tobacco executive discussing was to provide a service (cigarettes) to younger consumers (not even minors) in a secret video. NOW you would see the MSM IN ACTION with the video looped over and over. But a video showing an actress who is portraying a kid, most likely an abused run away, being pimped out and a major corporation aiding in that crime is ignored. IS ANYONE SURPRISED? After the MSM killed the abortion mill story in Philly where mostly black BABIES AND WOMEN were killed for over a decade while the state refused to monitor it because of liberal democrat POLITICS even though there were complaints and reports of the horrors dating back to 2002.
tired of liberal lies