• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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 Deceptively Edits Again[W:13]

[/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?
 
Middleground said:
Ah, you don't. Good golly, read the ****ing thread before chiming in. :roll:
Click to expand...

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

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
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
 
Slyhunter said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

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


I don't.

And if you think you're smarter than 5 independent investigations, then you're delusional.
 
Middleground said:
I don't.
And if you think you're smarter than 5 independent investigations, then you're delusional.
Click to expand...

5 investigations that provided not one example between them.

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

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Karl said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Grim17 said:
Here we go again.... LMAO

How did what he was wearing misrepresent what those workers advocated for [...]
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Karl said:
.....
Click to expand...
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
 

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…