James O'Keefe Deceptively Edits Again[W:13]

[Middleground]

i don't give a damn about that because as i said, i'm not defending o'keefe, i am defending the validity of the acorn videos he did.

You claim they were edited to take what those workers said out of contect, or make people believe they said something they didn't, and i'm still waiting for you to post 1 example of this.





That has nothing what so ever to do with whether the acorn videos were edited to take what those workers said out of context, or edited to make people believe they said something that they didn't... Which is what you have claimed...







Don't have a link and it isn't my job to find one... It's yours, because you are making the claim they were edited, not me.








How many total examplesdid those reports list, of an acorn video that was edited to take what those workers said out of context, or were edited to make people believe they said something that they didn't?


If you can find one, then please list it.




They made claims, but not one of them substanciated them... Yet this is perfectly fine with you, because after all, they are saying what you want to hear. Personally, i'm a person who likes to make my own judgements, i don't just blindly believe what i'm told and that's why i watched those acorn videos myself.


You don't find it strange, that for a week you have googled till you were blue in the face, and have not found 1 example of an acorn video that was edited to take what those workers said out of context, or edited to make people believe they said something that they didn't?

What does common sense tell you, when in this day and age, you can't find one single, tiny, itty bitty example anywhere on the world wide web that backs up the bull you and millions of other leftists have been spewing for the last several years?

It tells me that you've been had and don't have the honesty to admit it.







Sorry, but i haven't seen 1 example of an acorn video that was edited to take what those workers said out of context, or edited to make people believe they said something that they didn't?

...and neither have you... Lmmfao







yes he did call the police, but he didn't do it in their presence... Are you claiming the video edited that part out, or did the worker do this without telling them?


So tell me again, where exactly was the video edited to take what he said out of context, or edited to make people believe he said something that he didn't?





Finally!!! You have answered part of the question and it only took 13 post for you to do it.

the videos were not edited to make people believe they said something that they didn't...

glad that one is out of the way... Now on to the last one.




Where did this happen? I just watched the same video as you, and i heard what was said... O'keefe was soliciting the mans help to bring underage girls in from mexico, and the man was offing his help. Whether the man meant it or not is irrelevant. He said what he said, and the video was not edited to take what he said out of context.




That's what is known as a undercover sting... Police, the fbi and reporters do it all the time in order to catch people engaging in illegal or unethical activity... Which is exactly what o'keefe and giles were doing.





That is correct... When you go undercover, you don't walk into an acorn office an announce that you are starting an underaged prostitution ring and ask who wants in... Lol you work your way up to that.






that sir is a blatant lie...

you have never posted as much as 1 example of an acorn video that was edited to take what their workers were saying out of context, and you have already agreed that they were not edited to make people believe they said something they didn't.






update:

13 = the number of posts you have made on this thread since i asked you to post 1 example of an acorn video that was edited to take what those workers said out of context, or edited to make people believe they said something that they didn't.

0 = the number of examples you have posted of an acorn video that was edited to take what those workers said out of context, and the number of examples you have posted of an acorn video that was edited to make people believe they said something that they didn't.

[/quote]

I'm wasting my time debating someone who refuses to see. But before I jet, I want to ask you a few questions. Let's see how honest you are. You proclaim that you are, yet don't you never do as you say.

Let's talk about the guy who won the lawsuit against O'Keefe.

1) When you first saw the video, what did you think about him?
2) Based-on the video, did you think he did anything illegal?
3) Did you think he was cooperating with Giles and O'Keefe in helping underage illegals cross the border?

 

[Slyhunter]

Ah, you don't. Good golly, read the ****ing thread before chiming in. :roll:

Why do you blind yourself to the atrocities that Acorn has committed. Your party affiliation is warping your view.

 

[Grim17]

I'm wasting my time debating someone who refuses to see. But before I jet, I want to ask you a few questions. Let's see how honest you are. You proclaim that you are, yet don't you never do as you say.

Let's talk about the guy who won the lawsuit against O'Keefe.

1) When you first saw the video, what did you think about him?
2) Based-on the video, did you think he did anything illegal?
3) Did you think he was cooperating with Giles and O'Keefe in helping underage illegals cross the border?[/QUOTE]

As I have said, I'm always glad to answer any questions related to my political beliefs and will be more than happy to answer those 3 questions, as soon as the question I posed to you many pages ago is resolved.

The following statement you made, implied that those videos presented the words and intentions of the ACORN workers in a false, or misleading way:

what was depicted on the videos was deceptive and false

I'm going to expand on my question to give you every opportunity to substanciate that claim:


Can you substanciate your claim and provide one example of an ACORN video that was edited, or was presented in such a way that it misrepresented what those workers advocated for, agreed to, or had offered assistance on, or was presented in such a way that it took any of what they said out of context and/or led people to a false conclusion about what transpired between them?

If you can, then please do... If you can't, then simply acknowledge that you know of no example that substantiate any of that... After which, I will be more than glad to answer those, and any other questions related to this topic or my political beliefs in general.

 

[Slyhunter]

I admit I had a hard time believing, at first, that those Acorn people could be so suckered in. They have to be real low life scum to fall for his stunt.

 

[Grim17]

I admit I had a hard time believing, at first, that those Acorn people could be so suckered in. They have to be real low life scum to fall for his stunt.

That's pretty much the over-all conclusion that came from those videos. The fact that the organisation hired such low life people (i'm not saying they all are) is what told me they had no business being public funded.

 

[Middleground]

I'm wasting my time debating someone who refuses to see. But before I jet, I want to ask you a few questions. Let's see how honest you are. You proclaim that you are, yet don't you never do as you say.

Let's talk about the guy who won the lawsuit against O'Keefe.

1) When you first saw the video, what did you think about him?
2) Based-on the video, did you think he did anything illegal?
3) Did you think he was cooperating with Giles and O'Keefe in helping underage illegals cross the border?

As I have said, I'm always glad to answer any questions related to my political beliefs and will be more than happy to answer those 3 questions, as soon as the question I posed to you many pages ago is resolved.

The following statement you made, implied that those videos presented the words and intentions of the ACORN workers in a false, or misleading way:




I'm going to expand on my question to give you every opportunity to substanciate that claim:


Can you substanciate your claim and provide one example of an ACORN video that was edited, or was presented in such a way that it misrepresented what those workers advocated for, agreed to, or had offered assistance on, or was presented in such a way that it took any of what they said out of context and/or led people to a false conclusion about what transpired between them?

If you can, then please do... If you can't, then simply acknowledge that you know of no example that substantiate any of that... After which, I will be more than glad to answer those, and any other questions related to this topic or my political beliefs in general.

LOL, I did. More than once. Yet you refuse to acknowledge it. It's your problem, not mine. Now answer a question that I pose for once.

 

[Middleground]

Why do you blind yourself to the atrocities that Acorn has committed. Your party affiliation is warping your view.

I don't.

And if you think you're smarter than 5 independent investigations, then you're delusional.

 

[Grim17]

I don't.
And if you think you're smarter than 5 independent investigations, then you're delusional.

5 investigations that provided not one example between them.

LOL, I did. More than once. Yet you refuse to acknowledge it. It's your problem, not mine.

LOL... No you didn't.

I guess this discussion is about rapped up then... I gave you 15 opportunities to prove you accusation and even though I knew right from the beginning it wasn't possible because the accusation was false, I did hold out hope that you might put honesty over politics and admit you had no evidence and that you were mistaken. But just as usually happens when I think a liberal might be honest and tell the truth, as happened with you. they end up not only sticking to their falsehoods, but toss in one or two more for good measure.

Later.

 

[Karl]

Media Matters .... :lamo

Yeah, so what? Please show me where its wrong. [...]

He can't, of course -- it's just an ad hominem, which is of course an acknowledgement that he has no counter to your OP. Pretty much equivalent to a 6th grader hurling insults about your parents because he feels inferior to you. Sad, really.

Of course O'Keefe is a liar, that's been decisively proven several times. I wouldn't expect a leopard to change his spots, and I certainly wouldn't believe anything he has to say.

 

[Karl]

[...] Can you substanciate your claim and provide one example of an ACORN video that was edited, or was presented in such a way that it misrepresented what those workers advocated for, agreed to, or had offered assistance on, or was presented in such a way that it took any of what they said out of context and/or led people to a false conclusion about what transpired between them? [...]

ROFLMAO, you're joking, right?

First off, he wasn't wearing the pimp suit in the ACORN offices. You do know that, right?

That alone, with the way those videos were promoted, is enough to seal the deal on misrepresentation.

 

[Grim17]

ROFLMAO, you're joking, right?

First off, he wasn't wearing the pimp suit in the ACORN offices. You do know that, right?

That alone, with the way those videos were promoted, is enough to seal the deal on misrepresentation.

Here we go again.... LMAO

How did what he was wearing misrepresent what those workers advocated for, agreed to, offered assistance on, and took what they said out of context? You know and I know, such an assertion is ridiculous.

Let's cut through the bull and get right down to brass tax here... If you disagree with me, all you need to do is show one instance where an ACORN video was edited in such a way, that it took what those workers said out of context to lead people to a false conclusion about what they actually said and meant.

I don't give a damn about what others claim, I want to see an example showing that what was depicted concerning those ACORN workers in those videos, was not true due to manipulating or editing those videos. If you can't do that, then it proves that everyone who says those videos are phony, is spouting a bunch of unsubstanciated, politically based nonsense.

 

[Karl]

Here we go again.... LMAO

How did what he was wearing misrepresent what those workers advocated for [...]

It gave the impression that ACORN was working with a pimp. Everybody thought that, until his dame blew the whistle on that particular aspect of the scam. You see, once the lying starts, where does it end? If the whole story is based on a lie, then what value can be assigned to the story? More importantly, what credibility can be assigned to the liar?

BTW, tacks, not tax. Brass tacks.

 

[Grim17]

It gave the impression that ACORN was working with a pimp. Everybody thought that, until his dame blew the whistle on that particular aspect of the scam. You see, once the lying starts, where does it end? If the whole story is based on a lie, then what value can be assigned to the story? More importantly, what credibility can be assigned to the liar?

BTW, tacks, not tax. Brass tacks.

What a surprise... You didn't provide one example, just as every single liberal/progressive before you for the last few years hasn't done.

Thanks for not posting any proof to substanciate your claim so quickly... I was hoping you weren't going to make me wait all day.

 

[Karl]

What a surprise... You didn't provide one example, just as every single liberal/progressive before you for the last few years hasn't done.

Thanks for not posting any proof to substanciate your claim so quickly... I was hoping you weren't going to make me wait all day.

LOL, denial is a wonderful thing... unfortunately for your argument, holding your hands over your ears and eyes does not prevent everyone else from clearly understanding what you simply refuse to, and since you clearly refuse to see one example, you would surely refuse to see one hundred or one thousand. This is all too typical in the right wing echo chamber.

They guy was going to try and punk some female reporter by seducing her, he got in trouble with the law trying to fake his way into some senator's office, he lied about the pimp deal, he damn near committed voter fraud (probably should have been charged), etc... clearly a low life with no moral values. Not someone I'd want to be relying on for accurate information about anything (except perhaps on how to be a scumbag).

[...] the California State Attorney General's Office and the US Government Accountability Office released their related investigative reports. The Attorney General's Office found that O'Keefe had misrepresented the actions of ACORN workers and that the workers had not committed illegal actions. A preliminary probe by the GAO found that ACORN had managed its federal funds appropriately.[5][6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O'Keefe

I suspect we will now be told that Wikipedia is lying, the State of California is lying, the GAO is lying, or that all three are lying or are in collusion... when we already have documented proof of who the liar is. The level of denial from the right wing echo chamber is only eclipsed by the perfidy of the company they keep.

 

[pbrauer]

.....

Karl,

Grim says he has me on ignore so even though I am posting this here he apparently can't see it. But if you post it he will. So will you please post it?

The video that unleashed a firestorm of criticism on the activist group ACORN was a “heavily edited” splice job that only made it appear as though the organization’s workers were advising a pimp and prostitute on how to get a mortgage, sources said yesterday.

The findings by the Brooklyn DA, following a 5½-month probe into the video, secretly recorded by conservative provocateurs James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles, means that no charges will be filed.

Many of the seemingly crime-encouraging answers were taken out of context so as to appear more sinister, sources said.

ACORN set up by vidiots: DA | New York Post


Oh then, there was the New York Daily News:

Brooklyn prosecutors on Monday cleared ACORN of criminal wrongdoing after a four-month probe that began when undercover conservative activists filmed workers giving what appeared to be illegal advice on how to hide money.

While the video by James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles seemed to show three ACORN workers advising a prostitute how to hide ill-gotten gains, the unedited version was not as clear, according to a law enforcement source.

"They edited the tape to meet their agenda," said the source.

O'Keefe and Giles - who visited ACORN offices in several cities, including its Brooklyn headquarters - stirred controversy when they posted the videos on their Web site.

They were hailed as heroes by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and their footage led several government agencies to temporarily cut funding for ACORN as the prosecutors opened an investigation.

"On Sept. 15, 2009, my office began an investigation into possible criminality on the part of three ACORN employees," Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynessaid in a one-paragraph statement issued Monday afternoon.

Read more: B'klyn ACORN cleared over giving illegal advice on how to hide money from prostitution - NY Daily News

 

[Grim17]

LOL, denial is a wonderful thing... unfortunately for your argument, holding your hands over your ears and eyes does not prevent everyone else from clearly understanding what you simply refuse to, and since you clearly refuse to see one example, you would surely refuse to see one hundred or one thousand. This is all too typical in the right wing echo chamber.

They guy was going to try and punk some female reporter by seducing her, he got in trouble with the law trying to fake his way into some senator's office, he lied about the pimp deal, he damn near committed voter fraud (probably should have been charged), etc... clearly a low life with no moral values. Not someone I'd want to be relying on for accurate information about anything (except perhaps on how to be a scumbag).



I suspect we will now be told that Wikipedia is lying, the State of California is lying, the GAO is lying, or that all three are lying or are in collusion... when we already have documented proof of who the liar is. The level of denial from the right wing echo chamber is only eclipsed by the perfidy of the company they keep.

This is just one big circle... I ask for proof, not the opinions of others and what do I get? The exact opposite, just as every single liberal before you has done.

Those claims are just that... Claims... They not only fail to provide any proof to substantiate what they said (a video showing editing or deception to falsely implicate those ACORN workers), but don't cite one single example of any editing or any deception that misrepresented the words those ACORN workers spoke or how they were portrayed... The only example ever cited from any of the 5 reports people have posted, was that he was shown in a pimp outfit before entering an office, but actually wore something else during the meeting, which does not have any effect what so ever on the captured footage from those meetings.

Now either substantiate you claim that those videos are not valid and falsely portray those ACORN workers (which I know you can't do, because it's not true) or admit you can't and walk away... Hell, I'm beyond even asking for a retraction, because not one single progressive has ever retracted those false accusations and I don't expect you'll be any different.