True, but you’ll notice Dio also insists he’s qualified to police who is and isn’t a Muslim even though he doesn’t come from a Muslim background.
I don’t need a Muslim background to know the definition of a word.
What does ummat al-mu’minin mean in English?
The Christian thing has been addressed in GD before. There is no single definition of what makes a person a Christian. It is a stupid debating point.
No offense, but what does all of this religious stuff have to do with the OP? Please take it somewhere else so you guys can have your theological chest-thumping and we can discuss Mr. O’Keefe and his ilk.
ENOUGH!
All the nonsense about who is or is not Muslim, Christian, or any other flavor of belief have nothing to do with the lies of Mr.O’Keefe.
Take that “discussion” to some other thread.
[ /Moderating ]
James O’Keefe is a disgusting little weasel and he’s going to be roasted over his own fire soon enough. He solicits tips on his web site, sooner or later someone is going to set him up. I’m looking forward to it.
While you guys are going on for post after post after post after post about Christians and Jews and Muslims (lord knows why), you all seem to be ignoring this:
Since folks here don’t seem to want to follow the provided link, let me encapsulate: [ul]
[li]The video was edited to make it appear as if the NPR execs knew they were meeting with important members of a group with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. The raw footage exposes that lie.[/li][li] The video was edited to make it appear as if Ron Schiller was jovial about the acceptance of Sharia law. The raw footage exposes that lie (he was responding to a mixup over reservations).[/li][li] The video was edited to make it appear as if Ron Schiller has only negative things to say about the Republican Party. The raw footage exposes that lie.[/li][li] The video was edited to make it appear as if Ron Schiller thinks the Tea Party are “xenophobic…seriously racist people.” The raw footage exposes that lie. (He was relating what someone else said to him about their feelings.)[/li][li] The video was edited to make it appear as if Schiller and Liley denigrate the education level of conservatives. The raw footage exposes that lie.[/li][li] The video was edited to make it appear as if Schiller thinks NPR would be better off without any federal funding. The raw footage exposes that lie.[/li][li] The audio was edited out in more than one section (over 2 1/2 minutes), making it appear as if things were being said that weren’t.[/ul][/li]How the hell can anyone defend this? I mean, come on, even Glenn Beck’s website calls it what it is; DECEPTIVE EDITING. And it wasn’t just your average old “deceptive editing,” it was deceptive editing with MALICIOUS INTENT.
People have lost their careers and livelihoods over the lies this cretin has intentionally perpetrated, for no reason other than to further his political agenda. This isn’t just some talking head showing edited video to manipulate their viewers’ opinions. This was targeted, vicious, deception in order to cause injury to an individual or group.
And it works because so many people fall for it.
When will some of you start realizing that this creep is not to be trusted to tell the truth? Ever. How many more legitimate organizations have to lose their funding and people lose their jobs before you acknowledge that this man is evil and acts for one purpose and one purpose only – to take down Democrats, perceived “liberals” and/or perceived “liberal” organizations?
What’s it going to take?
That cite did say that the NPR executives in question were caught saying unfortunate things. The overall context lessened that but by no means eliminated it.
The firing of Ron Schiller on this basis is entirely justified. As for Vivian Schiller, she serves at the pleasure of the NPR Board, which didn’t seem pleased.
Whether O’Keefe is a hack or not is immaterial. The same result could have been achieved had the conversation been overheard.
So your assertion is that this was a technical flub, a mechanical error, instead of substituting one piece of audio for another?
Don’t strain anything reaching there.
One should scarcely have to point it out, but if they subbed in new audio it could make an innocent response to an innocent question suddenly sinister. I suppose you’ll demand a cite for that, too, but it’s long since been proven you want to defend O’Keefe at all costs.
“Unfortunate” is an opinion. I don’t think they said anything that wasn’t true.
He wasn’t fired, and it wouldn’t have been justified if he was.
What “result?” What do you believe was exposed here?
And the issue is not that O’Keefe is a hack. That’s not so bad. Geraldo is a hack. John Stossel is a hack. O’Keefe is a fucking liar and a con artist. He aspires to be a hack.
I think the difference is fairly obvious - O’Keefe picks something he wants to destroy, and goes out to find some footage to do it with.
Mainstream news organizations pick stories they think will sell, and go out to find footage.
The former has a (pretty much openly stated) political goal. The latter does not.
The truth is that the mainstream media does do exactly the same thing- or at least 20/20 does. See p. 67-68 here.
He tells fibs to me, to the public audience.
I don’t believe that he is trying to present a fair and honest account.
I defended him at one point during the Acorn affair, before the full extent of the manipulations was widely known, and I still resent having been taken in.
I have no problem, in fact, with provocatively “fishing” for stories. Every once in a while a valuable truth is revealed that way. But I don’t believe that O’Keefe is ultimately interested in depicting truth.
O’Keefe pretends to be a newsman while he creates and edits videos to create false impressions to hurt groups he is against. Saying he tells fibs is as dishonest as Okeefe is.
A fib is what you tell when your best friend is about to wear a hideous outfit that she dearly loves, and asks your opinion of it. You fib to protect her feelings.
What O’Keefe does is blatantly dishonorable. He films people without their knowledge, asks one question then edits the tape so that their answer to that question is either removed or replaced, and any number of tricks. One guy in the ACORN suit was depicted as taking down information so he could get in on some kind of shady deal; it turned out his brother in law was a cop and he called the guy later to give him info about the potential trafficking story. That’s disgusting.