Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hoax! Couple behind Birth or Not abortion voting website are internet fraudsters
Daily Mail ^ | 11/23/10 | Daily Mail Reporter

Posted on 11/23/2010 9:07:14 AM PST by CharlieOK1

The Minneapolis couple behind the website birthornot.com have been revealed as internet fraudsters.

Pete and Alisha Arnold, both 30, set up a website claiming they were torn about aborting or keeping their healthy baby boy and asked the public to vote online and help them decide.

But the alternative weekly City Pages revealed Pete is a pro-life activist who posts his beliefs on the internet under the alias Zeeboid.

(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; birth; birthornot; disenfranchisedvoter; hoax; internet; pravdamedia; publicitystunt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-48 next last
To: CharlieOK1; an amused spectator; wagglebee

“But the alternative weekly City Pages...”

If it is like the other “alternative weeklies” Village Voice Media publishes, much of the advertising comes from strip joints and “escort” services.

http://www.citypages.com/about/index/


21 posted on 11/23/2010 10:01:10 AM PST by a fool in paradise (The establishment clause isn't just against my OWN government establishing state religion in America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freekitty
I agree. Fraud is fraud.

Like when a caller spoke with Planned Parenthood staff and asked if they could target their money to a minority neighborhood but weren't really ever going to donate a cent?

Or when a couple dressed up as a pimp and sex worker visited ACORN offices and made an appeal for help in setting up a whorehouse for illegal immigrant minors to work out of?

22 posted on 11/23/2010 10:05:01 AM PST by a fool in paradise (The establishment clause isn't just against my OWN government establishing state religion in America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Nah, I’m not in objection to your plan in the least. If anything, I believe the illegal immigrants are callous to our rule of law.


23 posted on 11/23/2010 10:07:55 AM PST by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MNDude
seems like their plan worked to get thousands of abortion supporting people to look at the image of a fetus, before saying saying they agree with its destruction.

Those who voted for death are outraged! Their vote has been suppressed and they have been disenfranchised!

They want that baby dead just as they wanted Sarah Pablin's baby and grandchild dead.

24 posted on 11/23/2010 10:08:51 AM PST by a fool in paradise (The establishment clause isn't just against my OWN government establishing state religion in America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle

I’m not a proponent of that sort of shock campaign. Also, being a male, I don’t believe I have a say in a woman’s goings on. I’ll put forth my beliefs, but that’s all I can do. I don’t believe in restraining someone in that case.


25 posted on 11/23/2010 10:09:18 AM PST by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

They didn’t defraud me. Besides, I said in my initial post that I couldn’t care less if fraud was perpetrated. I was just commenting on the insensitive nature of their fraud.


26 posted on 11/23/2010 10:10:06 AM PST by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

Gee, a pro-abort objecting to pictures that depict the atrocities of abortion, why am I not surprised.


27 posted on 11/23/2010 10:14:54 AM PST by Truthsearcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Truthsearcher

HUH?! Where on Earth did you get that I was pro-abortion? May I point you to my other posts in this very same thread? I think you will find your statement completely unwarranted.


28 posted on 11/23/2010 10:26:24 AM PST by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

OK, how about protesting in front of an abortion clinic, inferring that the women who enter and use the services are killing their babies?

Is that callous?


29 posted on 11/23/2010 10:29:31 AM PST by Balding_Eagle (If America falls darkness will cover the face of the earth for a thousand years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle

I’m not sure if that’s the inference I would make, but I have no problem with them standing outside and doing so. I always honk at the folks in my area who do exactly that. If they can get one young woman to change her mind, I believe they’ve done God’s work.


30 posted on 11/23/2010 10:39:45 AM PST by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: rarestia
If they can get one young woman to change her mind, I believe they’ve done God’s work.

Wouldn't that also be true of the website in question?

31 posted on 11/23/2010 10:46:47 AM PST by Balding_Eagle (If America falls darkness will cover the face of the earth for a thousand years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle

The website from which the story was reported or the website with the poll asking if they should have an abortion?

The website (LifeNews) is always doing God’s work, but these two hucksters weren’t doing God’s work; they were spitting in the face of people with a big abortion loogie.


32 posted on 11/23/2010 10:54:15 AM PST by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: CharlieOK1

I thought this was a genius stunt to get people to consider abortion for what it is...terminating a child.

Brilliant


33 posted on 11/23/2010 11:23:11 AM PST by KOZ.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KOZ.

I tend to agree with you.


34 posted on 11/23/2010 12:02:12 PM PST by CharlieOK1 (m Ò_ó m)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

How?

They brought attention to the abortion debate, in much the same way protestors outside an abortion clinic do.

They made people think about the abortion question on a personal level, just as those who carry posters of aborted babies do.

They made it very ‘in your face’ just as the moving billboards do.

They allowed everyone to ‘go on the record’ just protestors who argue with the pro-life crowd do.

And, if this was a hoax, they brought more attention to the abortion question than any protest, billboard, or even an arrest outside a clinic has doen for a long time.

And they did this all without even endangering the life of one baby.

So, specifically, what is it that they did that was so offensive to saving babies lives?


35 posted on 11/23/2010 12:04:08 PM PST by Balding_Eagle (If America falls darkness will cover the face of the earth for a thousand years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle

Umm... my apologies if I’m misunderstanding something, but doesn’t the article state, specifically, that it was a hoax? Even by virtue of your response, you’re stating “And they did this all without even endangering the life of one baby;” so then you understand that this was a hoax, right?

The problem with petty back and forth in these exchanges is that the original article/statement is forgotten. The actions of this couple, defrauding, by definition meaning “deceitful pretenses,” an entire audience of web users and even having their poll hijacked, in a sense, by leftists; the intent to even entertain the idea of aborting a child by means of a simple majority vote is disgusting and deserving of reproach.

If you mean the protesters outside of an abortion clinic; I didn’t mean to imply that I was offended by them. I even honk at them and wave in approval. God bless them for standing out on a street corner and diligently trying to save lives. Like I said, if they can change the mind of even one young woman seeking an abortion, I believe they’ve done God’s work.

Did I explain myself clearly enough there? I’m still a little fuzzy on your context, so if you need more clarification, please let me know.


36 posted on 11/23/2010 2:04:56 PM PST by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: rarestia
The actions of this couple, defrauding, by definition meaning “deceitful pretenses,” an entire audience of web users and even having their poll hijacked, in a sense, by leftists; the intent to even entertain the idea of aborting a child by means of a simple majority vote is disgusting and deserving of reproach.

Does that 'hoaxing' and 'deceitful pretenses' condemnation also extend to the young lady, and others, who enter abortion clinics and decive the workers there?

I'm referencing those who claim to be pregnant, underage, sometimes 'hoaxing' the employees there to believe that they are underage, and pregnant by someone who would, if the 'hoax' were not a hoax, would be guilty of statutory rape.

Should our outrage extend to those people also?

37 posted on 11/23/2010 2:26:09 PM PST by Balding_Eagle (If America falls darkness will cover the face of the earth for a thousand years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: CharlieOK1

Interesting to note, the guy’s been banned from FR...

http://www.freerepublic.com/~zeeboid/


38 posted on 11/23/2010 3:57:14 PM PST by chrisam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle

I think we have strayed quite a ways from my original post. I am not sure what you are getting at. Your scenario seems highly unlikely. Why would a young woman hoax an abortion clinic worker into thinking that she is underage? In many states, underage girls are required to have parental approval for an abortion, or, at the least, have the parents informed.

If the underage woman hoaxes her parents by not informing them and then proceeds to hoax the abortion clinic worker into thinking she is at least 18, then I would be more than willing to lump shame on her for her deceit.

Otherwise, I find your scenario hard to believe. Why would someone who is of age lie about being underage to an abortion clinic worker? What benefit does that confer? Either way, shame on both the young woman for dismissing life and shame on the worker for not checking her identification, at the least.

Is this entire discussion based around the word hoax?


39 posted on 11/24/2010 4:11:04 AM PST by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: rarestia
Why would a young woman hoax an abortion clinic worker into thinking that she is underage?

You obviously are very uninformed.

This brilliant 'hoax' has been going on for a couple of years, at various clincs across the country, and I'm sure has been reported on extensivly at Life News. WorldNetDaily has reported on it many times.

It has caused stated Attorneys General to investigate PP organizations for their active involvement in covering up criminal activity.

The young lady is very calloused in her approach, almost as calloused as the people of the website we are talking about.

I'm surprised you haven't been protesting her actions.

40 posted on 11/24/2010 6:05:13 AM PST by Balding_Eagle (If America falls darkness will cover the face of the earth for a thousand years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-48 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson