What’s your view on Michael Moore, by the way? I don’t think I have ever heard the level of vitriol directed at O’keefe on this board leveled at Moore. Yet his videos do the same kinds of misdirecting stunts, to the general applause of hte left. I don’t believe this general sentiment of commitment to the unvarnished, undramatized portrayal of events that O’Keefe is being held to, because I’ve never seen Moore held to it by anywhere near a majority of the board.
I regard the pimp costume the same way I regard the black suit and tie costume shown at the end of the Census video – it is a dramatic way to convey the effect, not a meaningful claim. In the same way, I don’t believe O’Keefe actually threw money into the air while on a Ferris wheel; doubtless you regard that as another lie.
While I appreciate and understand your attempt to deflect from the subject at hand, I’d really appreciate an answer- why are you so willing to believe O’Keefe despite all of the lies and omissions he’s been caught in?
If you’d like to start up a Michael Moore thread, feel free. In this one, we’re discussing O’Keefe.
You don’t understand what tu quoque means, do you?
If I said, “Moore does it too, so it must be OK,” then that would be an example of the tu quoque fallacy.
What I am saying here is that because Moore does it and no one objects, the real argument is not, “We dislike a person who lies in video, and don’t trust him.” If that were the real argument, Moore would also be subjected to this criticism. The real argument, I contend, is that the tactic was used against ACORN and not the NRA.
But perhaps you can point me to some posts from people on the left here on this board that have said things about Moore that are nearly as strong as the criticisms leveled against O’keefe? Because I don’t remember seeing them.
Again, *this *thread is about O’Keefe. Not Michael Moore. Michael Moore’s actions do not pertain in any way to O’Keefe’s, nor do our views of Michael Moore. If you feel that Moore presents lies in support of his agenda, you can easily start your own thread. This thread is about O’Keefe.
No, this thread is about the standards used to judge O’Keefe, and if they are genuinely-held or adopted for the convenience of bashing O’Keefe. You claim a commitment to the unvarnished truth on video, and a horror and automatic furture distrust of anyone who violates that standard. But if you only apply that standard to O’Keefe, and not to Moore, it seems clear that standard is a lie.
No, I submit that O’Keefe lied to support his agenda, and, as such, any further claims on his part should be viewed as suspect. Whether Moore *also *lies in support of *his *agenda is completely irrelevant, and appears to be nothing more than an attempt on your part to move the subject to something you’re more comfortable with.
Nowhere in this thread did I “claim a commitment to the unvarnished truth on video”. I’d appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. All I said was that I was surprised that you’re willing to accept the word of a proven fraud.
Yeah, that’s the same link I found, and I found it unsatisfying precisely because it didn’t have the “dubbed dialog” money quote. Because “dubbed in dialog” is precisely what Dio said was on the record.
I don’t see what’s the problem with asking for the same degree of accuracy from our allies as we do from our opponents. It certainly would tend to deprive Bricker (at the very least) of ammunition.
And, FTR, I thought that bringing Michael Moore into the discussion was worthy of a bag of eyerolls.
Yes, well Dio does have a tendency to be less than 100% accurate. So good job to you for keeping everyone honest. I have heard that the dialog on the tapes was dubbed, but also have not found a direct source from a government investigative office that says this directly.
Well, I did find a pdf of a report by former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger
(bolding mine)
Full disclosure: The report is an "independent report by a reputable individual, however it was not an official government investigation; it was commissioned by the ACORN board.
I am familar with this scenario in two ways. A friend of mine is a trainer with the Census Bureau. He says they tell people to expect to stay a certain amount of time for the training and if they finish early (i.e., catch on quickly), they’re paid for the full time they were told to be there. Your reasoning is precisely it – why shortchange people’s paychecks for paying attention and quickly grasping what you’re trying to teach them.
I also put myself on the NYC list for City/State civil service test monitoring. When you are called, you are told to expect to be there 8 hours (sometime 6, sometimes 9); if I finish early, I am paid for the full time I was told to expect to be there. Because I have the steps down pat for collecting the answers sheets, test booklets, etc., and issuing exit passes and/or employer verifications, I’m usually one of the first in line to turn in everything and sign out once my candidates have all left. I’ve signed out as much as 2 hours earlier than the stated finish time because of fast (smart?) candidates and being efficient at the job I was hired to do.