YOU made this thread about ACORN. It did not start out that way. This thread is about what a sack of shit O’Keefe has been AFTER his crappy “video” that exposed what a massive criminal organization ACORN is.
O’Keefe’s actions SUBSEQUENT to his ACORN crappy video, show that, indeed, he is a lying, criminal sack of shit.
Yes, because I know if I look back to before O’Keefe was ever arrested, he’s treated with deference and applause here?
No. Same objection: you apply different standards to Moore and O’Keefe. You search desperately for ways to distinguish them. I’m certain that if Moore had been arrested for trespassing while filming one of his flicks you wouldn’t find the crime so dispositive.
I acknowledged in the other thread that the number of posts was not relevant, so your first “if” has been rejected.
And as to your second… all I’m doing here is correcting FACTUALLY WRONG statements about O’Keefe.
Be honest: do you seriously contend that you’re holding Moore and O’Keefe to the same set of neutral standards, standards that have nothing to do with the targets they pick? Do you?
Thanks.
And I lose my bet, it seems. 
Nah, I really am a huge punk.
See, this is interesting. My opponents are apparently not required to answer these sorts of questions honestly, but I am.
And the answer is: I believe both.
O’Keefe on a witchhunt? Yes.
O’Keefe found one relatively small misconduct? No, several, but yes, all relatively small.
O’Keefe dishonestly cuts video to highlight those instances of misconduct? Yes.
O’Keefe blew it beyond proportion? No, he had help there. He alone has nerither the power nor the influence to do anything.
O’Keefe’s attempt was to destroy a group that was identified as disagreeing with him politically? Yes.
But I don’t believe the majority of objectors to O’Keefe truly believe that conduct is per se improper, Hamlet, because when someone engages in that same sort of conduct targeting a left-approved target, like the NRA, there aren’t nearly the the sorts of righteous anger in play. So while I agree that your summary is accurate, I don’t agree that this ends the inquiry.
How about I ask for a little unvarnished honesty in return: does Moore engage in much the same sorts of tactics (witchhunt, blowing up small instances of misconduct through selective editing, targeting a group he disgarees with politically)? Why is Moore defended with vigor by many posters here?
AFAIK O’Keefe still had to confront the Maryland law regarding taping.
Because he breaks the law or misleads people in the way of getting his “evidence”
O’Keefe misrepresented or lied about what he was or the work he was doing.
But not an ignore-the-comment punk. Key distinction.
A reminder not so much for Dio’s benefit as for those who joined late and don’t want to go through hundreds of posts:
O’Keefe’s stunts at collegeincluded an affirmative action bake sale where brownies and cupcakes were offered to sale for minorities at much cheaper prices than to whites. He also attended a Race and Conservatism conference which was NOT, as its name may imply, a seminar to address Republicans reaching out to get more minorities in their ranks but aconference that included speeches by Holocaust deniers, white supremacists and white separatists who promoted the mental inferiority of blacks, Hispanics, and other non-WASPs. (Cite.)
I have many problems with Michael Moore and consider him an entertainer, not a journalist. I do not believe that he is a racist; O’Keefe is. Contrary to claims he’s just a gonzo journalist and Michael Moore flipside wannabe he’s much more a bitter little opportunist who’s about two inches away from wearing a Klan robe in public.
No voter fraud. ACORN registered voters. That is all. They submitted the registrations to the voting boards which rejected the bad ones.
And what does “confront” mean? Was he arrested? Indicted? Found guilty?
As does Moore.
I’m not so sure Moore didn’t do something similar for “Roger and Me,” but let’s say he didn’t. Let’s say that Moore, himself, never went undercover during his films.
Honestly: that’s the key difference? You want me to believe that if I discovered that he did, you’d start criticizing Moore with all the vigor you’ve thrown at O’Keefe?
I believe that descamisado was being sarcastic.
He’s correct about the impression O’Keefe and his conservative media pimps wanted to create, though. They not only wanted to create a perception that ACORN was involved in a nefarious conspiracy to steal elections, that Obama’s victory was not legitimate and that the validity of all minority voters is suspect. They want to foster the impression that lazy, brown welfare cases and illegal aliens are all colluding to steal America from decent, hard-working, white Christians.
Yes, I do. The two people are substantively different, and not just in the targets they pick.
Moore is a professional filmmaker that makes biased, one-sided documentaries that show his particular point of view. He admits he is one-sided, and has a bias. He has never been charged criminally as a part of his filmmaking profession. He has never crossed the documentary line in my opinion, which consists of dubbing different questions on top of his interviews to make it appear that his subjects are answering questions that they never actually heard. His films are often humorous, and are created for entertainment purposes. Many, many people think his films suck, even if they are on Moore’s “side” I just checked, and the NRA is still a functioning organization; he did not cause it one iota of damage. I’m unaware of any damage he’s caused to the good works of any organization that he has featured.
O’Keefe is an amateur filmmaker that achieved fame by filming some low-level workers at a single office who were guilty of listening to him and giving inappropriate advice without throwing him out of the office (like many of their fellow workers had already done) His released video contained overdubs that made the office workers look worse than they actually were. This crossed the line. The result was that the national organization was destroyed, based on two low-level workers giving inappropriate advice. Subsequent to this, he tried a “sting” operation with an elected official, and was caught sneaking into their building, and lying about what he was doing there. He was convicted.
I think a bake sale that sells at lesser prices to minorities is an excellent metaphor for affirmative action. That doesn’t strike me as racism at all.
Unless opposition to affirmative action is de facto racism.
I was taking “broad-view” approach to describing ACORN’s “strikes,” as they would be reported by a “diligent” reporter interested in true justice, if asked.
It was race baiting, and it’s not an apt metaphor because it’s not analogous.
How do you defend his presence (which is on videotape) at the neo-nazi rally?
Incidentally, the table O’Keefe was photographed sitting at during that rally is strewn with white supremacist literature.
Cite please. Particularly for Moore breaking the law.
Do we assume right away that the Maryland law against taping one without their consent is useless?
So when was he arrested or confessed to committing a crime?
I do remember thinking that Moore did very low things regarding the cuts with the interview he made with Charlton Heston, so I do have my complaints against Moore; so, does that irrelevant (IMO) revelation has anything to do with the issue at hand?
One key difference to me, is that the targets of Moore can fight back. Just until recently O’Keefs’ targets could do little as Sampiro reported, I do think that we will hear about O’keefe again, but not as looking for news but for **being **the news.
And once again, this is not about Moore, this is about O’Keefe.
So if Moore had damaged the NRA… THEN you’d dislike him? I have trouble swallowing that.
What is the distinction between Moore’s practice of cutting up multiple clips of a person and splicing them together to appear he’s showing one speech in one context? In “Bowling for Columbine,” Moore says that the NRA had a “pro-gun rally” in Denver, ten days after the shooting. He shows the mayor asking them not to come, and then shows NRA president Heston saying, “He sent me this; it says ‘don’t come here. We don’t want you here.’ I say to the Mayor this is our country, as Americans we’re free to travel wherever we want in our broad land. Don’t come here? We’re already here!”
But that was lies. The meeting was the annual corporate meeting, required by law; not a rally. Heston’s comment actually was:
Why is that not just as objectionable?
I’ll tell you why. It’s because Moore’s target is the evil NRA, while O’Keefe’s target is the saintly ACORN.
And why doesn’t Moore’s editing to make Heston look worse than he actually was cross the line? I’ll tell you why. It’s because Moore’s target is the evil NRA, while O’Keefe’s target is the saintly ACORN.
“Or.” Disjunctive. For me to say, “As does Moore,” then Moore must either mislead OR break the law.
You really need a cite for Moore’s misleading people?
It’s precisely analogous. Affirmative action seeks to make up for past discrimination by providing preferential treatment to minorities. That’s what the bake sale prices highlight.
I have no idea what he knew before he came to the event. Has he ever been to another one? Is it possible he saw what was going on there and realized he was misinformed? How long did he stay? Ten minutes, ten hours, what?