James O'Keefe vs. CNN

[SteveG1]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

What he tried to spin it into is irrelevant. Bottom line is that his videos did uncover things, both about the specific people in them and about the organization generally, that were not known prior to them being released.

Trying to deflect attention from that by pointing out that he overreached is not rational.

The only thing uncovered, was how much of a lying scumbag he (O’Keefe) and his supporters really are.

[Salvor]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

James O’Keefe is on to one thing and one thing alone: a significant subsection of the population is so conflict-averse that you can get them to agree with nearly anything in the short run, and you can do it on video. He uses this blatantly fuckin obvious bit of human psychology to make these videos and to imply that organizations are doing terrible things, even though there’s precisely zero evidence that organizations are actually doing terrible things.

He’s basically using a party trick to scam Republicans into thinking there’s a problem.

But his tricks work. I argued with a youtuber (an anti sjw swede no less) over the veracity of the 3 million illegals number.

It started with me venting in a long tirade against trump and his voters, the electoral college, the election, etc. You know who I am since I'm basically the only liberal in the comments making that kind of case, and skip the lengthy video unless you want to be enraged.

But note what the video creator, Sandre posted, that clip from O’Keefe’s hit job outfit.

Sandre believed it was the gospel truth, not a molecule of the production and what was shown was suspect. So while all of us here might be cheerleading about how ridiculous this figure is, republicans and conservatives believe him in droves, or just Trump supporters in general. It’s a datapoint that is convenient to their narrative of Trump support, it’s truth is secondary and will be believed because it serves their interests.
Do NOT diminish this effect. It matters.

[BigT]

Having the last word does not in any way prove you are right. Every one of your points was disproven. Simply repeating them will not make them true.

As I pointed out, you are biased against liberals, and thus easily believe anything that makes them look bad. And you have a problem admitting you were wrong, and stick to your guns no matter how much you’ve been shown to be wrong.

Some prominent Republicans claimed there were problems before the investigation was finished. Since then, it was fi ished and no wrongdoing was found. O’Keefe was successfully sued for defamation, meaning his claims were intentional lies. That means they are untrue.

That’s the reality. You really, really need to learn proper skepticism. Even I went and looked up to make sure I knew what I was saying before I posted this, in case I remembered it wrong. No wrongdoing was found by multiple investigations.

In short, nothingwas uncovered. It has a fucking Wikipedia article. It’s easy to check.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

My dearest and most beloved BigT,

Funny that you should comment at this point. Because the interesting thing is that I’ve just been having a conversation with my dear friends LHOD and Bryan Ekers about the fact that people’s opinion of other posters tends to be highly correlated to the extent to which they share ideologies. Now this is pretty obvious to anyone paying attention even slightly, and the fact that my two esteemed colleagues seemed to be obfuscating on this issue probably reflects the fact that they are both big kidders. You know how it is with that type.

But you’ll see for example that it’s very rare for liberals on this board to say anything nice about conservative posters, and when they do, it’s almost invariably in the context of bolstering the credibility of their attacks on other conservatives. On the other hand, liberal posters tend to have their supporters, no matter how flawed they are. It’s human nature, can’t fight it.

But there are exceptions. Yes, there are those posters who are completely aligned with the majority of their fellow liberals on the board and yet have somehow managed to attract almost universal scorn, to the point that one might almost think they were conservatives. And yet, their posts speak for them - they are True Blue.

Now I’m not suggesting that there’s only one exception to the general rule. But there is this one guy who stands out particularly in this regard. Solid liberal, staunch warrior for liberal causes, almost universally despised.

I don’t want to spell out the guy’s user name because he’s a sensitive guy and he’s suggested that this MB is an extremely important part of his life. But I’ll give you a hint. It rhymes with “pig pee”. A bit obscure, but if you think long and hard you might get a sense of who I’m talking about.

Now you would have to think this pig pee fellow must be something remarkable to have attracted such scorn in the face of such odds. And indeed, I think he is. Most notably he’s an extraordinarily sanctimonious person and is clearly not too bright. But it’s possible that there’s an additional part as well. Because this guy seems to have appointed himself as a sort of spokesman for his fellow liberals, and a good percentage of his posts seem to involve him lecturing conservatives and moderates on what “we” say or believe. Many people are not interested in having other people appoint themselves as their spokesman, and this is especially so when those putative spokesmen are also sanctimonious morons.

So that’s my thinking on this important subject. What do you think?

[SteveG1]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

… it’s very rare for liberals on this board to say anything nice about conservative posters, and when they do, it’s almost invariably in the context of bolstering the credibility of their attacks on other conservatives. … … almost universal scorn, to the point that one might almost think they were conservatives. … … sanctimonious morons.

So that’s my thinking on this important subject. What do you think?

And here. we. go.

Liberals are mean.

STFU, snowflake.
Really, STFU.

[xenophon41]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

So that’s my thinking on this important subject. What do you think?

That if you were an appreciable fraction as clever as you believe yourself, you’d be able to conduct your apologia without the ham handed wedge-driving.

Sad!

[Czarcasm]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

So that’s my thinking on this important subject. What do you think?

I think you have issues that you should maybe start a thread about, instead of inserting them into other unrelated conversations.

[Chisquirrel]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

My dearest and most beloved BigT,

Funny that you should comment at this point. Because the interesting thing is that I’ve just been having a conversation with my dear friends LHOD and Bryan Ekers about the fact that people’s opinion of other posters tends to be highly correlated to the extent to which they share ideologies. Now this is pretty obvious to anyone paying attention even slightly, and the fact that my two esteemed colleagues seemed to be obfuscating on this issue probably reflects the fact that they are both big kidders. You know how it is with that type.

But you’ll see for example that it’s very rare for liberals on this board to say anything nice about conservative posters, and when they do, it’s almost invariably in the context of bolstering the credibility of their attacks on other conservatives. On the other hand, liberal posters tend to have their supporters, no matter how flawed they are. It’s human nature, can’t fight it.

But there are exceptions. Yes, there are those posters who are completely aligned with the majority of their fellow liberals on the board and yet have somehow managed to attract almost universal scorn, to the point that one might almost think they were conservatives. And yet, their posts speak for them - they are True Blue.

Now I’m not suggesting that there’s only one exception to the general rule. But there is this one guy who stands out particularly in this regard. Solid liberal, staunch warrior for liberal causes, almost universally despised.

I don’t want to spell out the guy’s user name because he’s a sensitive guy and he’s suggested that this MB is an extremely important part of his life. But I’ll give you a hint. It rhymes with “pig pee”. A bit obscure, but if you think long and hard you might get a sense of who I’m talking about.

Now you would have to think this pig pee fellow must be something remarkable to have attracted such scorn in the face of such odds. And indeed, I think he is. Most notably he’s an extraordinarily sanctimonious person and is clearly not too bright. But it’s possible that there’s an additional part as well. Because this guy seems to have appointed himself as a sort of spokesman for his fellow liberals, and a good percentage of his posts seem to involve him lecturing conservatives and moderates on what “we” say or believe. Many people are not interested in having other people appoint themselves as their spokesman, and this is especially so when those putative spokesmen are also sanctimonious morons.

So that’s my thinking on this important subject. What do you think?

A 6 paragraph rant about someone you refuse to outright name. Did he piss in your Cheerios or something?

Also, this gem:

But you’ll see for example that it’s very rare for liberals on this board to say anything nice about conservative posters, and when they do, it’s almost invariably in the context of bolstering the credibility of their attacks on other conservatives.

Paraphrases to “Liberals are mean to conservatives, and when they say nice thing about or to conservatives, it’s only so they can say mean things to other conservatives.”

How long do you plan to stay on your cross?