Moore didn’t fake footage to accuse anybody of crimes and cost thousands of people their jobs just to foster a racist grievance (and pander to the same racism in others).
I don’t know. But I also have no idea what exceptions the law allows for, and what defenses O’Keefe could raise if charged. So I am unwilling to declare him guilty without giving him a chance to explain his conduct.
What does the word “or” mean to you?
No. It’s about whether you believe these standards you’re tossing out or not.
And the targets of Moore can fight back? ACORN, a multi-million dollar organization beloved of the Left, can’t fight back? The Department of Commerce can’t fight back?
No, it’s because the two examples are not equivalent.
Moore is not a saint. He edits footage by removing bits to show his point in the best light. This is not good. I don’t like it. That’s why I don’t like his films - they are too biased for me, and I know they are spun in such a way as to provide the maximum entertainment for a biased point of view. Judicious use of editing is frequently done this way; I don’t like it.
O’Keefe on the other hand, actually ADDED visuals and audio to CHANGE his film to make reality appear different than it was. This is substantively different.
O’Keefe BROKE THE LAW by misrepresentation in a subsequent “investigation”. This is not good.
If Moore had damaged the NRA with his Bowling for Columbine film, I would be quite pissed. Especially if the entire NRA was entirely destroyed. I may not agree with them in totality, but I recognize that they do good things.
Bricker, you have been seen to post opinionated things in this thread or post like a complete flaming asshole.
Not that I’m in any way, shape or form accusing you of being a complete flaming asshole or anything.
Incidentally, on the California case, it was demonstrated that Tresa Kaelke did follow the leading questioning by O’Keefe (It is clear that the brothel item had to come thanks to leading questions or the actions of O’Keefe) but there was a planted item: the ACORN employee played with O’Keefe adding even more outrageous items.
The fact that right wingers even attempted to discredit her was enough for me to dismiss their say so’s and O’Keefe.
Ah, now we see the goalposts begin their epic transnational journey. Now it’s not just faking… faking is peachy. Now we have to have faking to accuse people of crimes.
“He faked video, sir!”
“What do I care? Did his fakery accuse anyone of a crime, that’s what I want to know!”
No, so far as I know, Moore didn’t fake to accuse people of crimes.
Oh, wait. Didn’t he accuse Bush of a crime in selling Harken stock before bad news drove down the prices? Yes, he did. And there was the quasi-criminal accusation that Bush, via personal favoiritism, let the Saudis fly home after 9/11.
Good.
Of course, better would be a question:
Is Bricker known for posting opinionated things or being a complete flaming asshole?
Answer: yes.
Who would disagree with this?
Does not matter how “beloved” there were. (and this is horseshit, of course. They were relatively unknown until the right started blowing fuses about them daring to register poor voters who were likely to vote for the "wrong’ party.
That’s right, they could not fight back. They were not organized enough to fight a dirty tricks campaign that spun a simple matter of poor training and office organization into a nefarious scheme to destroy the American Way.
He knew what it was, he helped set it up. He was personal friends with one of the speakers. He was photographed at a table full of white supremacist literature, but it’s unclear whether he was “manning” the table (as Max Blumenthal characterized it) or just sitting at it.
That’s fair. And I have already said I don’t regard what happened to ACORN to be a good result. I didn’t agree with their political goals, but I thought they did good work, especially in the area of housing advocacy.
When did I say that I loved ACORN?
The point, that **Sampiro **supported, is that indeed the targets of O’Keefe are at a disadvantage. O’Keefe is IMHO just a coward that is finding out what happens when he begins to use his methods against more able targets. (By able I mean targets that have less of a baggage like ACORN had)
I’m not aware of Moore faking anything. Cite? He uses some emotional manipulation, but he doesn’t outright fake anything (like dubbing phony dialogue) the way O’Keefe did.
I don’t credit this. It’s interesting that he’s never been to any other such events, isn’t it? I mean, if your theory is correct, why wouldn’t you be able to point to more than one instance of a guy at a table? No speeches to the event, nothing except attendance.
Sorry. This, I don’t buy. And this coming from a guy who thinks O’keefe’s a dishonest bottom-feeder.
His Heston portrayal in Bowling splices together a speech from a year after the fact with two sections of the speech separated by five paragraphs, as I highlighted above.
The source for the quote on post #385
Is here:
http://mediamatters.org/research/201006010020
So, yeah, I would say that Moore still has not done anything at the levels O’Keefe has fallen to.
As it was already pointed out even by Bricker that O’Keefe deserves contempt, I wonder why this thread is still going.
What do you mean you don’t credit it? He admits himself that he was there. He was photographhed there. What don’t you credit?
I don’t know that he hasn’t, but it would not be surprising at all for him to avoid getting caught at such events now that he’s a public figure.
More than attendance, he was involved in promotion and execution of the eevnt, and he is buddies with one of the main speakers. And “theory?” What theory? I haven’t propounded any theory. It is a fact that O’Keefe was at this event. He admitted it himself. What exactly are you denying you believe?
So what? That’s not faking anything.
The claim that he was involved with promotion and execution of the event is what I deny.
Then O’Keefe didn’t fake anything. He said the words he said. Just not at that time.
The witnesses all say that he was. You’re just sticking your fingers in your ears with this one.