B-Man Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 (edited) Front page news on nearly every single news site I can think of, but the mainstream media is ignoring it.. This is pretty dense, even for your usual spin. The story was ignored, as has been documented throughout the thread, now it has been reported on.......... Huzzah! And as for your silly ABC cut and paste, that doesn't change the fact that it was not mentioned on ABC network news prior to this. Very weak Gene. . Edited May 13, 2013 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 14, 2013 Author Share Posted May 14, 2013 Care to explain how this: Nobody wants to hear or read the graphic details about baby's getting their spines snipped and the rest of the nasty **** that went on with this !@#$ squares with this It's all driven by ratings. They're giving the people what they want. It sucks, but this is the world we live in. ? WTF? Did you get DC_Tom's point? Or did you just write something to make it look that way? I've never, ever, ever heard of people using scissors to snip spines. Yes no ratings there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 Care to explain how this: squares with this ? WTF? Did you get DC_Tom's point? Or did you just write something to make it look that way? I've never, ever, ever heard of people using scissors to snip spines. Yes no ratings there. Nope, no ratings there. You can't senastionalize a story without either 1) a controversy or mystery (Did Scott kill Lacy Peterson or not? What happened to Natalee Holloway? Were the Menendez brothers abused or not?), 2) a live victim to interview ("Three women kept prisoner for ten years in Ohio!"), or 3) a salacious element to it (Monica Lewinsky, anyone?). This story is neither controversial nor salacious, and has no living victims to interview. Simply, it doesn't sell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 14, 2013 Author Share Posted May 14, 2013 (edited) Nope, no ratings there. You can't senastionalize a story without either 1) a controversy or mystery (Did Scott kill Lacy Peterson or not? What happened to Natalee Holloway? Were the Menendez brothers abused or not?), 2) a live victim to interview ("Three women kept prisoner for ten years in Ohio!"), or 3) a salacious element to it (Monica Lewinsky, anyone?). This story is neither controversial nor salacious, and has no living victims to interview. Simply, it doesn't sell. Perhaps, but, since the rise of the Saw series, doesn't unmitigated gore and horror, complete with "mad scientist" count as 4) on that list? Are you telling me that a KKK type, who runs around and kills black children on recess, would just be a "murder getting convicted of murder"? I'd say this is infinitely less about about ratings, and infinitely more about the MSM saying to themselves: "we don't want to report on a story that is going to directly lead to the lynching of black people, abortion doctors, and Nancy Pelosi, because, you know, it doesn't take much to push those crazy people on the right over the edge. They don't have any self-control, and of course everybody on the right gets their news from us." Edited May 14, 2013 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 Break out the tinfoil hats. Why did you guys want more graphic media coverage? Looking to use the murder of these babies for political gain? Looking to legislate some morals? Looking for some Motherment when it suits your belief system? Nobody likes abortion. Nobody gets off on the idea of killing fetuses. It's always been about individual rights. The only thing the 24-hour news cycle cares about is RATINGS. If the demand was there, the coverage would have been continuous. If he had murdered some hot young white girls the demand for information would have been insatiable. People didn't want to heard the gory details about what went on at this animal's clinic. It's disgusting and the public has little appetite for this sort of thing. One could very well argue that there is something wrong with anyone who does. Either that, or you're just trying to push an agenda. Get over your conspiracy theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 Nobody likes abortion. On the contrary, Gosnell and Planned Parenthood LOVE abortions. A cash-only operation like no other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 14, 2013 Author Share Posted May 14, 2013 Break out the tinfoil hats. Why did you guys want more graphic media coverage? Looking to use the murder of these babies for political gain? Looking to legislate some morals? Looking for some Motherment when it suits your belief system? Nobody likes abortion. Nobody gets off on the idea of killing fetuses. It's always been about individual rights. The only thing the 24-hour news cycle cares about is RATINGS. If the demand was there, the coverage would have been continuous. If he had murdered some hot young white girls the demand for information would have been insatiable. People didn't want to heard the gory details about what went on at this animal's clinic. It's disgusting and the public has little appetite for this sort of thing. One could very well argue that there is something wrong with anyone who does. Either that, or you're just trying to push an agenda. Get over your conspiracy theories. Tinfoil hats? Is it that hard to believe that liberals in the media have a terrible view of conservatives, and what's worse, that view not squaring with reality? How did they characterize the TEA party initially. Was that even close to accurate? Nope. Is it that hard to believe that given that view, they would argue that certain stories must be embargoed, based on the assumption that conservatives will react violently, with their guns and bibles, to those stories? Again, think about the "violent" TEA party lie they spread. Was that close to accurate? Nope. Is it that hard to believe that all of this nonsense in happening in their heads, and no place else, due to the fact that they have a "my ideology means I don't think, really think, that much for myself, and instead I simply defer, or submit, to whomever the pack has declared to be an expert"? That one is almost a surety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 Kermit Gosnell's Verdict Is Not Justice By Ramesh Ponnuru Kermit Gosnell is a serial killer. He was found guilty today of the first-degree murder of three infants and the third-degree murder of a patient at his abortion clinic. The grand jury believes that hundreds of infants met the same end as the ones whose murders were proved in court. Let no one call this justice. Among supporters of late-term abortion -- a small but vocal contingent -- a common reaction to the trial has been to say that restrictions on the practice drove women to Gosnell. The grand jury reached a different conclusion: There weren’t any restrictions, thanks to Pennsylvania state governments of both parties that supported legal abortion. Clinics stopped being monitored under the administration of Republican Governor Tom Ridge, who got himself a nice reputation as a moderate because of his stance on abortion. The question that should haunt us now is not how many victims Gosnell killed, which we will never know, but how many more Gosnells there are in our country. My National Review colleague Jillian Kay Melchior uncovered evidence that a few are in Florida. In a 2006 case, prosecutors were apparently unwilling to seek justice for a murdered infant left in a trash bag to die because she had been delivered at 22 weeks gestation. The theory that infants delivered that early have no rights -- that protecting them would conflict with Roe v. Wade -- is mistaken: The Supreme Court has never held any such thing. It may nonetheless be a widespread view. President Barack Obama, when he was a state senator, opposed legislation to protect such infants because he feared it would undermine Roe. The court has made clear, however, that as soon as a fetus makes it even partway out of the womb it becomes a baby that the law can protect. This distinction makes no sense to many people, who wonder why the location of this young human being should make such a large difference in whether he will live or die. Two Supreme Court justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens, expressed this bafflement in a 2003 case. We would have a law closer to our moral intuitions if we had serious restrictions on late-term abortion. But the court itself has prevented such restrictions by insisting that they include an unlimited exception for “health,” including emotional health. Gosnell's case ought to spur reform -- in states, which ought to make sure their abortion clinics aren't going even further than the law allows; in Congress, which ought to determine if the civil rights of infants are being adequately protected; and in the Supreme Court, which ought to revisit an abortion jurisprudence that is more extreme than is typically understood. http://www.bloomberg...ot-justice.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 Perhaps, but, since the rise of the Saw series, doesn't unmitigated gore and horror, complete with "mad scientist" count as 4) on that list? Are you telling me that a KKK type, who runs around and kills black children on recess, would just be a "murder getting convicted of murder"? I'd say this is infinitely less about about ratings, and infinitely more about the MSM saying to themselves: "we don't want to report on a story that is going to directly lead to the lynching of black people, abortion doctors, and Nancy Pelosi, because, you know, it doesn't take much to push those crazy people on the right over the edge. They don't have any self-control, and of course everybody on the right gets their news from us." You lost every right you ever had to participate in any conversation moving forward once you quoted the "Saw" series as anything resembling a reasonable source for an argument. Now shut up and go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 No Death Penalty for Abortion Doctor Philadelphia (CNN) -- A Philadelphia abortion provider found guilty of first-degree murder has agreed give up his right to appeal in exchange for avoiding a possible death sentence, Philadelphia's district attorney's office announced Tuesday. Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 72, was convicted Monday on three counts of murder for killing babies by cutting their spinal cords with scissors. The next step in the case was to have been the penalty phase, when jurors would have weighed whether to give Gosnell a death sentence. But the deal erases the need for that phase. According to a statement from the office of Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams, Gosnell on Tuesday "agreed to waive all of his appellate rights in exchange for life in prison without the possibility of parole instead of the death penalty." He was "immediately sentenced." http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/14/justice/pennsylvania-abortion-doctor-trial/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 No Death Penalty for Abortion Doctor Philadelphia (CNN) -- A Philadelphia abortion provider found guilty of first-degree murder has agreed give up his right to appeal in exchange for avoiding a possible death sentence, Philadelphia's district attorney's office announced Tuesday. Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 72, was convicted Monday on three counts of murder for killing babies by cutting their spinal cords with scissors. The next step in the case was to have been the penalty phase, when jurors would have weighed whether to give Gosnell a death sentence. But the deal erases the need for that phase. According to a statement from the office of Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams, Gosnell on Tuesday "agreed to waive all of his appellate rights in exchange for life in prison without the possibility of parole instead of the death penalty." He was "immediately sentenced." http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t2 Too bad the babies didn't get that choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 Too bad the babies didn't get that choice. Of life in jail without the possibility of parole? Those babies never did anything to anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 Of life in jail without the possibility of parole? Those babies never did anything to anyone. Don't be surprised if Obama pardons him in just about 3 1/2 years or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 Those babies never did anything to anyone. They must've done something to make Gosnell snip their spines. Oh, that's right. They didn't die in the womb like they were supposed to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 15, 2013 Author Share Posted May 15, 2013 You lost every right you ever had to participate in any conversation moving forward once you quoted the "Saw" series as anything resembling a reasonable source for an argument. Now shut up and go away. Oh please, and you lost your right to arbitrate threads...oh, well I guess you never had that right, did you? And, if you can't see the progression here, then I can't help you. All I can say is: do me a favor and stay out of my way. I'll make it easy for you: this is about my last post, and not about your dopey "salaciousness as a function of your criteria" theory. I couldn't care less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 Oh please, and you lost your right to arbitrate threads...oh, well I guess you never had that right, did you? And, if you can't see the progression here, then I can't help you. All I can say is: do me a favor and stay out of my way. I'll make it easy for you: this is about my last post, and not about your dopey "salaciousness as a function of your criteria" theory. I couldn't care less. That made no sense. Perhaps you can explain it with a Police Academy 6 allegory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 15, 2013 Author Share Posted May 15, 2013 That made no sense. Perhaps you can explain it with a Police Academy 6 allegory? So you didn't see it. Fine. I notice Frenkle hasn't responded, and that is all I care about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 So you didn't see it. Fine. I notice Frenkle hasn't responded, and that is all I care about. Lol, have you realized by now that I don't respond to you? I haven't read past the first sentence of any of your manifestos in literally months. You are background noise. I fart in your general direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 16, 2013 Author Share Posted May 16, 2013 (edited) Lol, have you realized by now that I don't respond to you? I haven't read past the first sentence of any of your manifestos in literally months. You are background noise. I fart in your general direction. That's fine, then I will go on making you look like a fool. And you will go on looking like one. The simple fact is: all of this was going to happen, because liberals haven't been right in the head since the 2000 election. Because they lost, they thought they were then allowed to do/say anything, however classless, or criminal. But, yeah, keep telling yourself that nobody "can lay a glove" on you. Edit: Oh, and Frenkle? You are responding...to my thread. Edited May 16, 2013 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts