because they did not immediately get a supervisor?
because they did not follow organizational protocol?
One thing is clear. Lightnin’ said it best:
He destroyed an entire organization that was registering voters, based entirely on a couple of temporary employees in single office offering conversation/advice to a person that may have been inappropriate. No inappropriate paperwork was filed by ACORN. No laws were broken. But they were destroyed. The only fathomable reason to destroy them was that they were registering voters who were probably voting for the “other party”. Do you not find this intensely objectionable? It is an affront to the democratic system.
At what point, Bricker, do you say: Hey, this O’Keefe commits crimes to get his “footage”. He was convicted of a crime. He does more than just show his “slant” or “point of view” - he actually significantly alters the footage he shows by overdubbing dialog that the participants did not hear, and puts in footage of himself dressed as a pimp that the participants did not see. He is not, in any way, shape or form, a credible source of information. How many times does he have to lie and get convicted before you will see this?
I should point out, that in the latest videos, he does things like ask a question, then jump a full fifty seconds ahead to stitch what may or may not be an answer to it.
For many reasons. The most important was as a sacrifice to the almighty altar of public relations. Somewhere in there is also the appearance of impropriety, being stupid, not going by the book, and giving inappropriate and unprofessional advice.
In a competing thread, getting **Bricker **to condemn the Catholic Church for institutionalized facilitation of child rape has been harder than pulling hen’s teeth. You really think the board’s own Bizarro-Atticus Finch is going to denounce this twit for defaming a liberal institution here and there?
And because they gave unprofessional and inappropriate advice.
I think the results were not consistent with the offense, surely. ACORN’s reaction was appropriate: they had an external investigation done and were (presumably) going to implement the changes recommended. But this was a strike – not a huge strike, but a strike – against an organization that already had two strikes.
Well, with respect to ACORN, he didn’t commit a crime. Whatever crimes he was guilty of had nothing to do with ACORN.
And I doubt the righteous outrage you place here. Moore alters footage as well. Moore inserts cuts so that two events that happened apart in time appear to be happening right after one another, a tactic that leaves just as much of a false impression as O’Keefe’s shenanigans do. But Moore doesn’t rate this kind of emotional attack. So I conclude it’s not the misrepresentation that offends you so much as the target. ACORN did good work and he killed it, and that’s more serious than attacking the NRA. You’re in that other thread defending Moore right now.
For example, would I ever say anything like “He’s gone too far,” or “I think he’s a smug punk more interested in creating a narrative to match his agenda than in telling a truthful story,” or “I agree that O’keefe’s unvarnished word is not credible?”
No chance of that.
Right?
And you’re such a punk, I think there’s an even chance this reply will sink like a stone; you’ll never acknowledge your error.
The outrage against O’Keffe includes taping illegally in secret, and not caring at all if what the ACORN workers said was accurate before releasing the “expose”.
And what you are doing here is still a Tu quoque fallacy.
But as a Moore defender points out in the other thread:
See, when defending Moore, we can say things like, “Jumping ahead and showing things out of sequence is fine; he was making a point.”
HERE, we say jumping ahead and showing things out of sequence makes the whole sequence untrustworthy.
Seriously: you don’t have a hair on your ass if you can’t acknowledge that Moore in that thread and O’Keefe in this one are being held to very different standards.
If the statement Moore was making was “You can walk in, get a gun, no questions asked” then sure, it’s a misrepresentation, because the standard questions are asked, no differently than any licensed gun dealer. But if the statement Moore was making was “A bank is giving away guns,” then that’s not a misrepresentation. The actual procedure is irrelevant; regardless of how strict they may, they really are giving away guns. The statement is true.*
It depends on the statement being made. If O’Keefe’s statement cannot be true without the editing, then he misrepresented the encounter, just as the statement I might make with that post of yours I edited earlier cannot be true without the edit.
*Honestly, I don’t know what statement Moore was trying to make; like I said, I don’t really give a shit about him, didn’t see his movies, and I’m just shooting the shit online.
For the last freaking time: learn the goddam fallacy!
Tu quoque argues that because this guy also did it, it’s not wrong.
THAT IS NOT THE ARGUMENT.
The argument is: you are holding Moore and O’Keefe to different standards, which calls into question the sincerity of that standard.
Can you not comprehend the difference between those two lines of argument?
Jesus, you’re like a little fucking parakeet that’s learned to tweet “Tu quoque” whenever any comparison to anyone else is made.
My argument is: you’re not telling the truth when you claim your objection to O’Keefe is a politically neutral one derived from his method of presenting a story.
Now, if that is my argument, focus whatever brain cells you might possess on this question: what evidence could I present in support of such an argument?
Or, if you can’t comprehend that, I suggest you go munch a cuttlebone and ring your little bell next to your perch, because your addition to this debate is reduced to your ability to repeat tu quoque like a parakeet.
Nope, you need to point where Moore committed a crime on the way of getting his tapes; also, as the full tapes were not released, I still have to assume that O’keffe used extremely leading questions and misleading behavior to get what he wanted.
In the case of Moore he shows up as Moore even when ambushing his target and the interviewed people at least know how to react.
The problem here is that I did not brought up Moore into the conversation, you did or continue to press him as a counterpoint.
If it is not a Tu quoque then it is still an attempt to shift the target… With a side order of a personal jab.
Plus, avoiding dealing with the point I made that indeed there is a difference on what Moore is doing vs O’Keefe. But it is easier to just insult your opponent eh?
What were the strikes again, exactly? You say there were three, and one of them was in (presumably) not telling their employees that if someone comes in pretending to be a pimp who wants to run for office you should *immediately *call the cops… but what were the other two?
I thought it was illegal, at least in Maryland, to record a conversation without the consent of both parties.
Or could it have been that O’Keefe (joined in by the right wing media and idiotic members of Congress) was on a witchhunt and found one relatively small misconduct (dishonestly cutting apart a video to highlight it) and blew it beyond any sense of proportion (especially when I look at other groups receieving federal funds that murder, steal, bribe, and many more serious things that are actually crimes), all in an attempt to destroy a group that was identified as disagreeing with them politically.
I think the “strikes” are supposedly (i) the massive voter fraud ACORN committed and was convicted of, through which they sent millions of illegal voters to the polls and changed the outcome of the 2008 election, and (ii) the assistance given by the entire ACORN organization to Dale Rathke so that he could embezzle funds from ACORN over a decade ago.
This thread is not about ACORN. You have made it into a defense of ACORN. This thread is about what a lying, untrustworthy, criminal sack of shit O’Keefe is. Recently. After his ACORN pile-o-crap.
This thread is not about Moore. You have made it into an attack on Moore.
You’ve also put me into a laughable position - If nobody posts in the Moore thread - then you assert that this means that we’re just picking on poor O’Keefe. If I post a cite that shows that something in that thread is FACTUALLY WRONG, then I’m “defending” Moore.