And Moore is a complete and total asshole. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Nothing he says can be trusted, either. Unlike Al Franken. Al Franken is honest and accurate.
You advanced the idea that a key difference between Mooreand O’Keefe is that O’Keefe’s actions ended ACORN, and Moore’s actions didn’t hurt the NRA.
So why can’t I ask, further, if that means that if Moore’s actions DID hurt the NRA, you’d be equally perturbed with him?
Because it sure does seem like you’re arguing that they both tried, O’Keefe suceeded, and THAT is what makes him worse. But my belief is that what’s rally going on here is that O’Keefe’s target was ACORN, and THAT is what made him worse. Tp prove that, I’m highlighting the fact that if the NRA took a huge hit from Moore’s actions, you wouldn’t be that upset. So you can’t claim (sincerely, anyway) that the difference between the two is that O’Keefe killed his target and Moore didn’t.
I’m pretty sure you know that the NRA is still alive and well, and I’m pretty sure you know that the NRA is not a recipient of government largess. So, yeah, the equivalent would be people choosing to quit the NRA.
And this is opposed to ACORN getting government funding, which they have no particular status to demand as a matter of right.
So your point is much like Hamlet’s: Moore’s results have been minor; O’keefe’s major. Moore not being worthy of disdain has nothing to do with his methods, but with the magnitude of his results.
So I have the same question for you as for Hamlet: if Moore’s efforts had resulted in wide-spreadoutrage, and people leaving the NRA in droves… the NRA collapsing or being radically reduced in size and effectiveness… then, you’re saying, you’d have equal disdain for Moore as for O’Keefe?
sigh
No. Lightnin’ makes a perfectly valid argument that needs to be addressed. He doesn’t claim that Moore is a tu quoque; he attempts to offer a principled distinction between Moore and O’Keefe.
At this point, he could say, “Yes, if Moore had destroyed the NRA, then I’d hold him in petty much equal disdain.” He would thus show that his application of the rule for disdain is not based on the ideology of the target, but on how seriously the bad behavior affected the target. This is a perfectly valid distinction: we can punish a vandal who spraypaints a wall more seriously than a vandal who uses chalk, because the chalk washes off easily.
Or he could further refine his principled distinction, to show (as Hamlet may be contemplating) that the true distinction lies somehow in destruction by government action as opposed to destruction by the aggregate choice of private individuals.
Or he could say, “Good point, Bricker, and you’re right, and I’ll never doubt you again.” One can dream. 
But what he did NOT do is mindlessly reject the Moore argument without grasping where and what the underlying argument is.
Didn’t your high school have a debate class?
You would only have a valid point if Moore’s goals were, in fact, the same as O’Keefe’s- to destroy the two relative organizations. You haven’t established that.
If Moore’s goal was simply to publicize the problems Liberals have with the NRA and thereby make money, then I suggest that he is, in fact, *more *successful than O’Keefe. Moore has, no doubt, made tons of money. O’Keefe has made some, but he hasn’t hit the big time yet.
O’Keefe destroyed ACORN- which I would suspect was *his *goal.
This is why I think comparing the two directly, as you’ve tried to do, is a logical failure- you haven’t established that they have the same goals. Would Moore be happy if he had destroyed the NRA, in the process of his goal of being a successful rabble-rousing filmmaker? I don’t think he would’ve shed a tear. But I don’t think he started out with that goal in mind at all, because the NRA is simply not the same type of organization as ACORN is/was.
One basic rule a teacher offers is usually a list of simple rules that includes “No put downs” as well as penalties for interrupting the discussion.
Looking at the OP it is clear that you flunked the class, Moore is not the subject of this, as much as you are furiously pegging him into this, in the end it is an attempt to minimize the lousy actions of O’Keefe.
You are not fooling anyone.
Hmmm.
Well, that’s a good point.
I am forced to agree. Moore’s goals are probably not to destroy his targets.
Now: was O’Keefe’s? Or did he start out much like Moore and simply stumble into the Perfect Storm?
sigh
There is a well-formed argument going on that is dealing with the distinction between Moore and O’Keefe.
You are not able to participate in that argument, because you don’t understand it.
That’s fine. Good for you. Participate where you can.
That is called a hijack in this context.
They already gave you a link for that argument, just because you don’t see it it does not mean that you are not being a jerk.
In any case the discussion regarding O’Keefe would had been over a long time ago, the teacher by now would had pulled you to detention as you are not leaving the podium after the bell rang and everyone else did go home.
(and if you think you are succeeding even in the hijack, I only had to point out that you refused to deal with the tape of the “murderess” in California)
No there isn’t. There is you, incapable of refuting the inculpatory evidence against O’Keefe, furiously trying to derail this thread. Yeah, but Michael Moore… isn’t much of an argument.
And there is Lightnin’, who is apparently speaking in aboriginal click language for all you understand, doing a fine job of addressing the point via well-formed argument.
I have no idea what the faux murderess is supposed to prove.
Looks like he’s waving the white flag, in his own inimitable way.
Okay, maybe it’s imitable, but it shouldn’t be.
It is clear that your superior intellect is not capable… 
It demonstrates that O’Keffe (and Breitbart, his mentor) are incapable of even acknowledging that a key piece in their presentation was false. It would be as in a documentary Moore had shown an interview with lets say a close relative of the NRA president that rambled for 20 minutes that the NRA had shooting ranges with babies as targets and O’Keffe did not care that:
-
The interview was clearly a put on.
-
The information given was false but because it matched their narrative it had to be released.
I advanced the idea that actions should, in part, be judged by the consequences of those actions. I really didn’t think that would be a really contested issue. I most definitely didn’t advance the idea that “Moore is OK”, that Moore isn’t “good at what he does”, or that that was the sole distinction between Moore and O’Keefe. Hence my comment: “A dishonest interpretation, a strawman and rampant stupidity in just one short sentence.”
You can. And Lightning and I have explained it to you.
I will also submit that the fact O’Keefe found it necessary to go to multiple different locations, all of them from ACORN, and he suppressed the evidence of no wrongdoing by the other offices, edited out the part where there is some, and spent long hours touting his findings that yes, he intended to do his best to destroy ACORN. So not just are the consequences of their actions (even though you have to create a hypothetical to even get Moore in the same category as O’Keefe which should tell you something) different, so are their intents. And, I think we can agree, intent and consequences of actions are valid things to consider when judging someone’s actions.
If Jay Leno’s Jaywalking segments or another “man on the street” type program found five people that couldn’t name the current president of the United States and used that as a serious indictment of New York’s educational system, wouldn’t it certainly be considered dishonest if it turned out that the host had to ask several hundred people who all knew the right answer before even one didn’t, and it further turned out that one was just dicking with the host when he answered “Ralph Nader” with a straight face?
Ugh, this is tiresome. How often do threads have to become some kind of teaching moment where liberals are taught about their hypocrisy? This thread is about O’Keefe, and even if every left-leaning individual in the world—in whose number I do not necessarily count myself—were a hypocrite, it would not change what O’Keefe did or whether it was wrong.
Why is it relevant here for everyone to shower Moore with the same opprobrium that they shower O’Keefe? What’s the end-game here? More rants about Moore? Fewer about O’Keefe? Why does any of this matter?
As you will see if you scroll back, I modified my tu quoque comment to “tu quoque -like”. In other words, while you did not specifically say “X” did it too, so you are wrong", you did go go for the " X " did it too, and you don’t complain about him so you’re a hypocrite" gambit. I did not refer to a tu quoque again. You can tell which poster made which comments by looking at the left-hand side of the post. You have tried to derail the topic at hand by making a false equivalence between Moore and O’Keefe. I have told you why I think it is a false equivalence.
You will note that I have already made such a comment. Again, you aware that there are different people responding to you, yes?
Oh, I get your argument all right - I just reject the premise that Moore and O’Keefe are equivalent. For reasons that I have made clear.
And further, I believe your “argument” is merely designed to take attention away from the original topic of this thread: That O’Keefe is lying, idiotic seeker of personal fame, who dubbed dialog and visual images into a video to emphasize that low-level workers were engaging in poor work practices. He did this in order to destroy an organization that was registering voters who some were afraid would vote for the “wrong” party. He subsequently was caught trying to sneak into a government building under false pretenses, in order to (presumably) dig up some dirt on a politician that was in the “wrong” party.
Once agan, I’m sorry but I don’t engage in insult contests.
My high school did, but my Mom wouldn’t let me, for fear it might lead to law school.
Is that what this is for Bricker? Nostalgia for high school? A time and place when all that mattered in a discussion was form and articulateness and the occasional feeling of “winning”, not actual content or moral basis?
Then all this board is missing is a panel of judges empowered to tell him “You lose, schmuck” in a way he can’t deny.