Posted on 09/07/2008 4:14:17 PM PDT by jern
Drudge: NY Times Prepares To Front Expose on Palin's Baby...Developing...
Wild guess here, but perhaps the claim would be that Bristol isn’t really pregnant now, just a slightly chubby, lactating mother, and the sinister plot is to claim miscarriage or otherwise cover it up after the election.
With my first child, my water didn’t break but I was in labor. They broke my water at the hospital and I had my son not long after. I was only in the hospital an hour and half prior to his being born. With my second child, my water broke at around 8 p.m. at home, and I went to the hospital. He wasn’t born until 12 hours later. Everybody is different.
Dieses untermenschlisches Kind soll nimmer eingeboren haben! Sarah Palin hat eine echte Judische Weltanschauung! Trig hat ein schmutzige lebenunwuerdiges Leben! Sieg zum unserer glorioeser Fuehrer, Obama! Heil Das Ein!
Now THAT is a flying pig!
What does it mean... to front an exposé?
It means to publish someone else’s work. Someone not employed by the Times has researched and written a story and they will publish it on the writer’s behalf.
Show me, I've never heard Gov. Palin make this statement or anyone else say such a thing.
The first time I saw Bristol, I thought she was pregnant. I did not say anything, because I thought that would be wrong. She’s clearly pregnant.
Also her SISTER ALSO HAS A DOWN'S CHILD who is now 13. She mentioned this during her interview and I remember wondering if it was a genetic predisposition.
No. I don't think there is anyone here that thinks this could be true. Only trolls and DU'ers believe this cr*p.
Are you the former, the latter or both?
Maybe you should wrap your head around the idea that this is the latest in a series of repugnant smears, all of which have been thoroughly and painstakingly debunked.
Or you could google “concern troll”.
I thought the O’Reilly interview was ‘done and delivered’ this weekend. Or mabey I missed count. Actually, lost interest after the ‘first round’. Lots of congratulations for O’Reilly - for what I thought was by and large; a lame ‘magic act’ that Obama played out for all of us.
bttt
When the purpose of a story makes no sense you know it’s a lie.
Not absolutely, completely, out of the realm of possibilities.
“SEC. 1177. (a) OFFENSE.—A person who knowingly and in violation of this part—
“(1) uses or causes to be used a unique health identifier;
“(2) obtains individually identifiable health information relating to an individual; or
“(3) discloses individually identifiable health information to another person,
shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
“(b) PENALTIES.—A person described in subsection (a) shall—
“(1) be fined not more than $50,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both;
“(2) if the offense is committed under false pretenses, be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both; and
“(3) if the offense is committed with intent to sell, transfer, or use individually identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain, or malicious harm, be fined not more than $250,000, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.”
There isn't an exception for the press or the fact that someone gave you the info. Not only that the NY Times would be publishing the info for commercial advantage, personal gain and depending on if it could be proved in a court of law malicious harm.
If it isn't based on actual health record info you'd have to have something far more than “he said she said” to go with a story. Oh, wait, we are talking about the NY Times who ran the story about McCain having an affair that was so well sourced and documented.
“SEC. 1177. (a) OFFENSE.—A person who knowingly and in violation of this part—
“(1) uses or causes to be used a unique health identifier;
“(2) obtains individually identifiable health information relating to an individual; or
“(3) discloses individually identifiable health information to another person,
shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
“(b) PENALTIES.—A person described in subsection (a) shall—
“(1) be fined not more than $50,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both;
“(2) if the offense is committed under false pretenses, be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both; and
“(3) if the offense is committed with intent to sell, transfer, or use individually identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain, or malicious harm, be fined not more than $250,000, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.”
There isn't an exception for the press or the fact that someone gave you the info. Not only that the NY Times would be publishing the info for commercial advantage, personal gain and depending on if it could be proved in a court of law malicious harm.
If it isn't based on actual health record info you'd have to have something far more than “he said she said” to go with a story. Oh, wait, we are talking about the NY Times who ran the story about McCain having an affair that was so well sourced and documented.
How?
Isn't a little late to bring logic or facts into this?
It’s great fun.
LOL !!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.