• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

James O’Keefe Strikes Again

Were I to answer your question, I would state that 1) If my friend were only to lie and could never tell the truth I would not be friends with them and 2) Were I to still be friends with them (for some inescapable reason) I would check out what they told me as I do not believe a person exists who can only lie and never tell the truth.

That wasn't my question.
 
That wasn't my question.

Ahh... let me go back and check again... here it is:

So you would condemn your friend based on the word of a known liar, and before you even gathered the facts together, is that what you're saying?

And my answer was:

Ockham said:
Were I to answer your question, I would state that 1) If my friend were only to lie and could never tell the truth I would not be friends with them and 2) Were I to still be friends with them (for some inescapable reason) I would check out what they told me as I do not believe a person exists who can only lie and never tell the truth.

Fits perfectly. :shrug:

Sorry you don't like my answer to your question.
 
No you're not, you're talking about a "real" friend who's talking about supporting voter fraud. I'm talking about a liar (whom, remember, you know to be a liar) telling you your friend did something wrong.

See, your refusal to answer the question is hilarious because you know you would never do that to your friend. Nobody would!

Well, sadly, almost nobody.

shrug...

You asked me a question. I answered it.

Then I asked YOU a question. Instead of answering it, you dismiss my answer.

Doesn't sound to me like you are interested in an exchange here.
 
Our mail-in Colorado law was in effect for that primary election, so the issues raised by O'Keefe were relevant then...as they are now.

Actually, our Colorado law DOES address this issue. It limits the number of ballots from other people that a person may deliver to 10 ballots.

Please source this supposed 10 ballot limit.
 
shrug...

You asked me a question. I answered it.

Then I asked YOU a question. Instead of answering it, you dismiss my answer.

Doesn't sound to me like you are interested in an exchange here.

Actually, you turned the question into something else so you wouldn't have to answer it. Let me try to paint the question more clearly for you:

A known liar (we'll call him Joe) walks up to you and says, "Hey Mycroft, I saw your buddy Steve rob a 7/11 clerk with a gun yesterday!"

Do you...
a) go to Steve and say, "Steve, Joe told me you robbed a 7/11 yesterday. I know Joe's a terrible liar but, you know, I have to ask. Is it true?" or
b) go to Steve and say, "Steve, you robbed a 7/11 yesterday. You and I are finished!"

And just to head off the predictable response to this, let's say Joe didn't simply tell you that Steve robbed a 7/11, but he showed it to you. With footage he edited together himself.
 
Last edited:
Ahh... let me go back and check again... here it is:



And my answer was:



Fits perfectly. :shrug:

Sorry you don't like my answer to your question.

See my clarification to Mycroft.
 
Evidently, those ladies couldn't convince their bosses that they were only "humoring" O'Keefe, eh?

Only one woman seemed to agree with O"Keefe's every word and she was a volunteer, wasn't she? She sure volunteered a lot of bad information, that's for sure....but then she's mostly just repeating what O'Keefe just said.
 
Last edited:
Actually, you turned the question into something else so you wouldn't have to answer it. Let me try to paint the question more clearly for you:

A known liar (we'll call him Joe) walks up to you and says, "Hey Mycroft, I saw your buddy Steve rob a 7/11 clerk with a gun yesterday!"

Do you...
a) go to Steve and say, "Steve, Joe told me you robbed a 7/11 yesterday. I know Joe's a terrible liar but, you know, I have to ask. Is it true?" or
b) go to Steve and say, "Steve, you robbed a 7/11 yesterday. You and I are finished!"

sigh...

Don't bother me with your hypothetical situations. Keep on topic and don't waste my time.

You see, your hypothetical scenario hinges on your assertion that O'Keefe is a known liar. By extension, you believe that he is lying in this video...or editing it...or...something.

I answered your question in relation to the topic of this thread.

I then posed a question to you, asking if you have any evidence that O'Keefe is lying in his video, which you have ignored.


Now, you can go ahead and keep harping about your hypothetical scenario...as if it has some sort of relevance to this topic. That's fine. But I reject your hypothetical scenario outright. If you keep on about it, you'll be talking to yourself.
 
sigh...

Don't bother me with your hypothetical situations. Keep on topic and don't waste my time.

And there you go. Partisan hacks as a rule never answer hypothetical questions. Because we both know you would never condemn Steve based on Joe's word, and that would ruin your position in this thread.
 
Our mail-in Colorado law was in effect for that primary election, so the issues raised by O'Keefe were relevant then...as they are now.

Actually, our Colorado law DOES address this issue. It limits the number of ballots from other people that a person may deliver to 10 ballots.

Isn't there some other shady s**t going on in Colorado?
Michelle Malkin was on with Megyn Kelly talking about it.
‘How Democrats bought Colorado': Michelle Malkin talks ‘Rocky Mountain Heist’ [video] | Twitchy
Apparently she's got a film, cleverly called "Rocky Mountain Heist", that's got some nasty stuff in it.
 
Only one woman seemed to agree with O"Keefe's every word and she was a volunteer, wasn't she? She sure volunteered a lot of bad information, that's for sure....but then she's mostly just repeating what O'Keefe just said.

Perhaps you should watch the video again.

All three women shown in the video encouraged the actions that were proposed.

One woman outright agreed with the action. “That is not even like lying or something, if someone throws out a ballot, like if you want to fill it out you should do it.”

The second woman gave suggestions as to where the discarded ballots could be found. (that's the one, I think, that you are suggesting was "humoring" O'Keefe. LOL!!)

The third woman directed the questioner to the place where they could register...knowing that person already registered and VOTED in another State.
 
Isn't there some other shady s**t going on in Colorado?
Michelle Malkin was on with Megyn Kelly talking about it.
‘How Democrats bought Colorado': Michelle Malkin talks ‘Rocky Mountain Heist’ [video] | Twitchy
Apparently she's got a film, cleverly called "Rocky Mountain Heist", that's got some nasty stuff in it.

Thank you for that video.

I've seen...lived...the stuff Malkin is talking about. It's all true.

btw, I hope she doesn't mind that I'm going to steal her line...it's a good one. "It reeks...it smokes...it burns!"
 
Well with all the creative editing he's done in the past most of us are holding back until the facts come out. I watched the first few minutes and literally anything could have happened between those cuts, to say nothing of quotes and people taken out of context altogether.

Agree. For those saying "but they said what they said" - we really don't know what the question was. O'Keefe could have said "Would you like to get a pizza with pepperonn?" and they could have said "yes, that's a great idea". When the video was released, O'Keefe could have re-dubbed his question to "Would you like to go dumpster-diving for ballots?" and their answers would sound like they are committing voter fraud.

Maybe the video was 100% honest. Just doesn't seem likely given his past history. And I suspect the firings were a knee-jerk reaction. I could be wrong. But generally people don't condone voter fraud.
 
The third woman directed the questioner to the place where they could register...knowing that person already registered and VOTED in another State.

But she also told them it would have to be determined if they could vote. Even if they can't vote in this election, you still want them registered for the next one. Nothing wrong with registering after moving to a new state; but the voter would be at fault if they voted twice.
 
But she also told them it would have to be determined if they could vote. Even if they can't vote in this election, you still want them registered for the next one. Nothing wrong with registering after moving to a new state; but the voter would be at fault if they voted twice.

Then she should have told them they cannot vote twice. She didn't do that. She told them where to go to try it.
 
Which of course makes absolutely no sense.

Not my problem if you don't understand.

Look...you have devolved this to both of us sniping back and forth. That's unproductive. I won't take part anymore.

Until you answer my question...

You are dismissed.
 
Not my problem if you don't understand.

Look...you have devolved this to both of us sniping back and forth. That's unproductive. I won't take part anymore.

Until you answer my question...

You are dismissed.

You can't even answer a simple, straightforward question as to whether you would condemn a friend on the sole word of a known liar, because you know to do so is ridiculous. Just as it's ridiculous to condemn anyone based on a known liar's editing of footage he won't as a matter of policy release, but that's okay with you. You have no moral high ground here.
 
More like you don't want to answer a simple question.

That's a common trait with the left around here... Speaking of which... Hey kobie, I realize that answering questions is very dangerous for you, but it's been nearly 40 hours and I'm still waiting for your response to the post below:

Seriously? You've insisted his videos aren't deceptively edited when a police investigation determined they were.

I insisted that the videos done on ACORN were not edited in any way that misrepresented those workers views, took what they said out of context, or in any way made people believe that they said or meant something that they didn't. You keep going back to what was said by elected politicians and governemnt investigators, but what you fail to grasp is, not one of them ever cited as much as one instance that supports their accusations... Not one. Those tapes, both the edited versions and the full, unedited versions were all released to the public. I took the time and watched them and there is not one single instance of editing that changes anything those people said, or leads people to a false conclusion about those workers.

How can you possibly believe that such editing took place, when those videos were made public and were available to anyone with an internet connection, and yet to this very day, not one liberal journalist, not one liberal blogger, and not one liberal like yourself who posts on political discussion boards, has ever posted the video evidence that supports that accusation?

Does it really take this long to dig up some talking points?
 
Back
Top Bottom