• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Clarence Thomas's wife presents award to James O'Keefe at Trump hotel

JasperL said:
Them being undercover isn't the issue. It's that they intended to lie to get some out of context comments to smear a paper, and through that to smear women who came forward against Moore. The whole effort is repugnant.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you have to lie under cover to get comments or w/e.
 
JasperL said:
Clarence Thomas's wife presents award to James O'Keefe at Trump hotel | TheHill
Click to expand...

mind_blown.gif
 
Fishking said:
Yeah, you have to lie under cover to get comments or w/e.
Click to expand...

Or best of all you figure out what innocuous questions you can ask to get an innocuous answer that you can then edit to look like its the answer to an entirely different question so you can give your viewer a false impression that fits your narrative.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
If moderate conservatives(the far right is beyond hope) doesn't see how dangerous something like this is to our democracy, then all hope is lost for the GOP.

A sitting Supreme Court's Judge wife honoring a POS like O'Keefe at property owned by the current sitting president? Gee I wonder how Thomas will vote on the up coming SC cases?

Unbelievable!!
Click to expand...

AND Thomas was accused of inappropriate sexual behavior.
 
Fishking said:
I see you completely don't understand the purpose of undercover work if you think the intent was to plant a false story.
Click to expand...

Actually, O'Keefe's MO is to go to multiple locations and do multiple interviews and then cut and paste the conversations together to give the impression he wants.

He is exploiting a cognitive glitch. The same one that causes people to grossly over-assess the threat to their children out in the world. We see almost every bad thing that happens to children and our brains just don't do the math for the many millions of children who made it through the day safe and sound.

He finds a couple of people who say a couple shady things in a different context and the phenomenon above gives his audience the impression the behavior is systemwide and accepted. Business as usual.

Frankly I can't wait to see what karma has in store for him.

Its gonna be epic!
 
Fishking said:
Yeah, you have to lie under cover to get comments or w/e.
Click to expand...

You keep ignoring why he was doing it - to discredit or smear women making allegations against Moore. If it was to CATCH a sexual predator, the whole moral calculus changes, doesn't it?

And it's not how he gets his video, but the completely dishonest way he often edits it to tell a lie, a false story.

It appears you're working very hard to miss the point.
 
Last edited:
Fishking said:
Sorry, no. I'm fine giving actual responses to other posters, and have done so. You're not worth it because you have no value aside from being a play toy for me to mock while you bluster about trying to sound like some kind of internet tough guy.
Click to expand...

Lulz. Whatever you have to tell yourself to keep your delicate world from impoding. Again. His record speaks for itself and clearly it's something you have to lie to yourself about.

I could set my watch by how frequently you run away.
 
Fishking said:
I don't particularly have feelings one way or another about O'Keefe. He's barely worse than the MSMs in my book, who have been cause any number of times doing hatchet jobs and editing things in a way that was horribly dishonest. In a world where everyone is blind, the one-eyed man is king.
Click to expand...

Like nearly every "both sides" argument, that's a weak one too. They're nowhere in the same universe. You're just buying into Trump's attack on the legitimacy of anything that's reported in the 'news' so his defenders can substitute their own BS.
 
JasperL said:
You keep ignoring why he was doing it - to discredit or smear women making allegations against Moore. If it was to CATCH a sexual predator, the whole moral calculus changes, doesn't it?

And it's not how he gets his video, but the completely dishonest way he often edits it to tell a lie, a false story.

It appears you're working very hard to miss the point.
Click to expand...

That's what you believe is the reason but it seems to me that the purpose is to show the lack of journalistic integrity that is present in the MSMs.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Lulz. Whatever you have to tell yourself to keep your delicate world from impoding. Again. His record speaks for itself and clearly it's something you have to lie to yourself about.

I could set my watch by how frequently you run away.
Click to expand...

Ah...your "run away" cliche comment that literally has never happened. Again, the only thread that is the proper one for any interaction with you you ran away from. I just love smacking you around, though, like a cat playing with a frightened mouse.
 
JasperL said:
Like nearly every "both sides" argument, that's a weak one too. They're nowhere in the same universe. You're just buying into Trump's attack on the legitimacy of anything that's reported in the 'news' so his defenders can substitute their own BS.
Click to expand...

I'm not buying into anything. It's factual observations that I've witness first hand, time after time.
 
Fishking said:
That's what you believe is the reason but it seems to me that the purpose is to show the lack of journalistic integrity that is present in the MSMs.
Click to expand...

But it's not designed to show that. As I said, if they'd filmed an investigative reporter doing her job and sympathizing with a source - the exact same thing any undercover cop would do - they'd have dishonestly edited that, Fox would have run the comments on a damn loop, all to use as evidence WaPo was BIASED!! FAKE NEWS!! THEY HATE TRUMP!!! etc. And we don't have to guess this - they have a long record of doing exactly that.

You're delusional if you believe that effort was an honest search for some truth. The proper way to determine a lack of journalistic integrity on the "MSMs" is to do the hard work of reporting, and checking sources, and finding out that the sources were somehow illegitimate, lied, etc. But that takes integrity on their part. Easier to do the media equivalent of an ad hominem attack.
 
Fishking said:
I'm not buying into anything. It's factual observations that I've witness first hand, time after time.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. The "MSMs" make mistakes today like they have for a few hundred years, but there isn't any legitimate reason to pick a given story in the large media outlets and NOT trusting that what is reported is accurate than you should have distrusted what was written in 2000 or 1990 or 1980 or 1970 or 1960, etc.
 
Fishking said:
That's what you believe is the reason but it seems to me that the purpose is to show the lack of journalistic integrity that is present in the MSMs.
Click to expand...

Then he shouldn't have done the deceptive stuff he's done in the past.

You can't test journalistic integrity WHEN YOU HAVE NONE.
 
Fishking said:
Ah...your "run away" cliche comment that literally has never happened. Again, the only thread that is the proper one for any interaction with you you ran away from. I just love smacking you around, though, like a cat playing with a frightened mouse.
Click to expand...

It's OK that you cannot actually respond in a substantive manner; you've never done so in the past, there's no reason to think you might now.

O'keefe's record speaks ftself, no matter how mad that makes you.
 
JasperL said:
Nonsense. The "MSMs" make mistakes today like they have for a few hundred years, but there isn't any legitimate reason to pick a given story in the large media outlets and NOT trusting that what is reported is accurate than you should have distrusted what was written in 2000 or 1990 or 1980 or 1970 or 1960, etc.
Click to expand...

No, they do things that are not mistakes. It's OK. I don't expect you to believe it.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
It's OK that you cannot actually respond in a substantive manner; you've never done so in the past, there's no reason to think you might now.

O'keefe's record speaks ftself, no matter how mad that makes you.
Click to expand...

You don't have anything of substance to respond to. Bluster is not substance, in case you were wondering. As for O'Keef's record, it's been good enough, and substantial enough, to get people fired for misconduct and to pull some apologies out of people that normally would never have had to do it before.

Oh...and it doesn't make me mad. I don't care one way or the other about O'Keef. So I guess the question is, why are you so angry about everything? I can only assume that everything angers you as that is what you always say everyone else is so it must be what your norm is.
 
Fishking said:
No, they do things that are not mistakes. It's OK. I don't expect you to believe it.
Click to expand...

Sure, of course the "MSMs" sometimes deliberately report bad information, or likely far more often, pass along misleading or false information fed to them from their 'source' in government or industry or elsewhere. But that's not saying anything other than news organizations are run by people, who aren't always honest. Well, that's true of any organization or group you can name - governments, for profit businesses from the smallest to Fortune 500, non-profits of every size, shape and purpose including churches, of every religion.

So now what? If you need to know or care about the "news" then what do you do with this knowledge that every news organization that has ever existed, and members of every other major organization on this planet for all time, has likely done things that are not mistakes to mislead you?

In my experience, it's much safer to trust the "MSMs" because they have more to lose by lying to you, and losing your trust, than any other source. And there are 10s of thousands of reporters and other employees who cycle in and out of those news orgs over a decade or so, and how many stories are there of reporters fabricating news? There are a few that we know about because when caught it is a MAJOR scandal. But there are too many people involved for that kind of thing to be common practice for those scandals not to erupt every few months.

So given that is the rational approach, that's what I do. If the NYT reports that WH source Jack (or a senior unnamed official) said something, my best bet as a consumer of information is to trust that did happen. Now I can read that and be skeptical if that source isn't named and the information is more like gossip than hard facts, but then my next best bet is to try to figure out why a WH source is leaking that kind of damaging information that I suspect might be misleading or worse. IMO, the absolute dumbest approach is to assume NYT is lying, and just fabricated that whole story. If we could prove it, I'd give you good odds, 100-1 or better, and bet against that being the case all day, every day. Pick your favorite major conservative outlet and I'd say the same thing.
 
Fishking said:
You don't have anything of substance to respond to. Bluster is not substance, in case you were wondering. As for O'Keef's record, it's been good enough, and substantial enough, to get people fired for misconduct and to pull some apologies out of people that normally would never have had to do it before.
Click to expand...

I know you have to pretend that to yourself to feel better about your cowardice, but it's simply not my problem. That to say that O'Keefe's record has been 'good enough to get people fired for misconduct' is to rationalize away his criminal behavior and utter dishonesty. You two have a lot in common.
Oh...and it doesn't make me mad. I don't care one way or the other about O'Keef. So I guess the question is, why are you so angry about everything? I can only assume that everything angers you as that is what you always say everyone else is so it must be what your norm is.
Click to expand...

Suuuuure you don't care about him. You care enough about him to lie about him.

Does this have to do with your rabid hatred of women? Is that why you indentify with him so closely?
 
Tanngrisnir said:
I know you have to pretend that to yourself to feel better about your cowardice, but it's simply not my problem. That to say that O'Keefe's record has been 'good enough to get people fired for misconduct' is to rationalize away his criminal behavior and utter dishonesty. You two have a lot in common.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry he upsets you so much to not acknowledge that his content has had enough real info to have an actual negative effect on your team. However, these facts remain, no matter how much you want to complain.

Suuuuure you don't care about him. You care enough about him to lie about him.

Does this have to do with your rabid hatred of women? Is that why you indentify with him so closely?
Click to expand...

Point out one lie I've said. Just one. Also it's cute that you are desperately trying to bring in a pathetic string of comments from an entirely different thread in a desperate attempt to try and bolster your failing point over here. Desperation is a stinky cologne.
 
Fishking said:
I'm sorry he upsets you so much to not acknowledge that his content has had enough real info to have an actual negative effect on your team. However, these facts remain, no matter how much you want to complain.
Click to expand...

Your anger about having your cowardice exposed is really affecting your ability to post rationally, low as it already was. I don't have a team.
Point out one lie I've said. Just one. Also it's cute that you are desperately trying to bring in a pathetic string of comments from an entirely different thread in a desperate attempt to try and bolster your failing point over here. Desperation is a stinky cologne.
Click to expand...

Gladly: "I see you completely don't understand the purpose of undercover work if you think the intent was to plant a false story." His intent in the WaPo situation was to plant a false story. All evidence indicates that's the case.

But, as usually, all you have is empty bluster and laughablle ignorance.

Yawn.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Your anger about having your cowardice exposed is really affecting your ability to post rationally, low as it already was. I don't have a team.

Gladly: "I see you completely don't understand the purpose of undercover work if you think the intent was to plant a false story." His intent in the WaPo situation was to plant a false story. All evidence indicates that's the case.

But, as usually, all you have is empty bluster and laughablle ignorance.

Yawn.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you failed at a very basic request. That's not a lie, but a fact. It's what the intent of the O'Keef videos have always been So sad.
 
Fishking said:
Sorry, you failed at a very basic request. That's not a lie, but a fact. It's what the intent of the O'Keef videos have always been So sad.
Click to expand...

No, based on his history, and your lack of honesty in addressing and recognizing it, it's a fact, and that's never been what his intent has been.

Keep digging that hole!
 
Tanngrisnir said:
No, based on his history, and your lack of honesty in addressing and recognizing it, it's a fact, and that's never been what his intent has been.

Keep digging that hole!
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you failed. Why do you continue? Obviously there is an extreme lack of self-awareness on your part.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom