So you claim something is my "modus operandi", I point out it is not, and now you want me to prove that your unsubstantiated claim is false?
You made the claim so back it up. Reagan said it best: "Trust but verify".
Saying something is true does not make it so. Hint: I have never read more than about 5 pages of Alinsky and was bored stiff by it.
I say the sky is blue - not true? And sure Alinsky is a boring read, but it's a text book for socialists and progressives. I've yet to read a textbook that was interesting....
I don't consider other American's my enemy, nor do I consider debate war.
You're choice, and that's fine by me.
Except I have done just that. I have no need to defend PP.
You've been doing it though, maybe unknowingly.
In this case PP acted appropriately as an organization. An individual may very well have acted inappropriately, and they already have been punished for it, and may face more if any laws where broken. That is as it should be.
So you're okay with them firing her but you cannot admit she acted inappropriately? You say "may very well have"... that tells me it's still not clear to you, yet you're okay with actions taken against her.
The source material is questionable not because of any beliefs on my part, but because an edited video from an interest in the outcome is not reliable, no matter how you try and spin it.
And it's not reliable BECAUSE it's edited, yet I still don't understand why you cannot take one segment only, without the rest of the edited parts, view it for face value and form an opinion. The only reason I can see is because you have a need to discredit it due to the edits. Edits only work in the context of the whole; in order for edits to make a difference in the context, the edits have to lead the viewer to a conclusion that would not necessarily be there otherwise. The sections as I see them have no such structure - they discuss different things in the different sections. In viewing the sections on their own, it IS clear to me that Woodruff not only acted inappropriately, provided potentially and illegal advice. The uncut video may show even more which will get her criminally charged.
What is funny is you claim my comments are based on my support of abortion rights. It's not, but there is no way to prove it either way. However, you seem to fail to realize that the exact same could be said of your reasons for defending the source.
That's just it, I'm not defending the source. I know nothing of the source other than what others have written in this thread. I'm not even taking the source into consideration - i'm looking at the segments of the video, listening to the comments and context and saying "That's ****ed up" on face value.
In fact, people tend to assign motivations to others that they find believable based on their own motives, so I would consider it likely that the reason you want to make a big deal about this is your anti-abortion rights stance.
What's more likely is my motivations are to make a judgment about something that happened as either "right" or "wrong". Your motivation is to defend and discredit a source which you don't agree with, instead of actually taking a stand on the subject. In fact, you do that fairly consistently; attack the source and discredit seemingly without taking a position on the issue one way or the other. Nuanced maybe but not transparent. PP apparently doesn't share your Kakorrhaphiophobia and have fired her, even though you still don't believe that's a valid action.