Left's war on women: The abortion clinic

[_krose]

The dumbest thing about this thread is the title: "Left's war on women." Nothing in this discussion is less demonstrable than a claim that liberals want fewer female babies born. That's laughably absurd. After all, we liberals are well-known feminists, often portrayed as hating white males (people like me). And don't forget that it is a conservative cultural viewpoint that leads Asian parents to prefer boys over girls.

Republicans are desperate to manufacture issues to counter their own weaknesses, in this case their weakness on women's issues. "I know you are but what am I" is their favorite tactic this cycle: "Nuh-uh! You're the ones with a war on women!" "Romney bullied a kid in high school? Well, Obama once pushed a little girl in first grade!"

It's pretty weak when the best they can come up with for a "war on women" is an alleged campaign against baby girls, conducted by their own mothers. Do I have to point out that the accused warriors against women here actually are women?

Pathetic.

[_Kevin Graham]

At the end of their interview, the worker tells the woman that she hopes the baby she carries will be the boy she wants (which would mean the abortion would be avoided, of course). The video editor loops this statement with an echo as if it's something ominous, evil and anti-girl.

Utter dishonest nonsense.

ROFL!

Brietbart would have been proud. This is the kind of non-news nonsense that is fabricated from thin air on these Right Wing blogs sites, and then embarrassingly eaten up uncritically by those willing to be deceived just because what they're reading makes them feel good about their hyper-political positions.

Way to go bcspace! Could you damage your credibility further? I think not.

[_Bond James Bond]

That's laughably absurd. After all, we liberals are well-known feminists, often portrayed as hating white males (people like me).

I hate you, but I hate my own white self even more.

[_Kevin Graham]

Well, bcspace, what do you have to say for yourself? You've become an agent of disinformation along with the rest of your whack-job sources.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201205310021

Tonight O'Reilly is supposed to whine about how the media is ignoring this fabricated "news story."

What's really at work here is the Fox Cycle. As we've documented, this is a strategy Fox News uses to help right-wing activists and fringe figures catapult bogus stories into mainstream outlets.

Here's how it works:

1. Right-wing bloggers, talk radio hosts, and other conservative media outlets start promoting and distorting the story.

2. Fox News picks up the story and gives it heavy, one-sided coverage.

3. Fox News and conservative media attack the "liberal media" for ignoring the distorted story.

4. Mainstream media outlets eventually cover the story, echoing the right-wing distortions.

5. Fox News receives credit for promoting the story.

6. The story is later proven to be false or wildly misleading, long after damage is done.
We're at Step 3 of the cycle for Rose's latest round of hoax videos.

The right-wing Media Research Center began complaining this morning about broadcast networks' choice to not cover the phony outrage, and now Bill O'Reilly will amplify the complaint that "the media" aren't covering it.

Will other outlets allow O'Reilly and Fox News to make their editorial decisions for them?

Given Fox's recent display of its total disregard for journalistic standards, it seems like a bad idea.

[_Brackite]

Planned Parenthood ended up firing that worker.
I basically agree with Ron Paul and the six other Republicans in Congress who voted against this Federal bill. I believe that this particular issue is a Tenth Amendment issue that should be left up to the States.

House rejects bill penalizing doctors for sex-selective abortions:
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/h ... -abortions

Statement on HR 3541:
http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option= ... statements

[_krose]

Can anyone tell me of any activity that is illegal only when it's done for a single specified reason?