Was O'Keefe Sting Really A False Narrative?

ModerateGOP said:

I could only stomach maybe about five minutes of it, before I started to lol. Besides the so-called evidence is presented through such rose-colored glasses I could barely force myself to continue watching.

Click to expand...

You're arguing with Grim. O'Keefe films are basically porn to him.

Deuce said:

Please. Are you telling me you just accept footage from Michael Moore at face value and discuss it as evidence? Or do you remain skeptical until further details and analysis comes up.

Click to expand...

You should know by now that is exactly how I approach information. A gut feeling is not a statement of absolute certainty.

The fact the poster apparently refused to even consider the evidence presented, nor even view it, suggests there is no objectivity involved at all.

Sans even a shred of objectivity, there is no credibility.

rocket88 said:

Well Michael Moore is a liberal. See, we're supposed to take cons at face value because they'd never tell a falsehood :lamo

Click to expand...

Yeah Conservatives never tell lies or team up with other liars. :roll:

ocean515 said:

You should know by now that is exactly how I approach information. A gut feeling is not a statement of absolute certainty.

The fact the poster apparently refused to even consider the evidence presented, nor even view it, suggests there is no objectivity involved at all.

Sans even a shred of objectivity, there is no credibility.

Click to expand...

Oh I am sorry I am not objective towards CTs.
I guess you want me to think it's great to watch lies and propaganda, as long as it fits your narrative. :shrug:
Sorry I'm not a sheep to O'Keefe.

ModerateGOP said:

Oh I am sorry I am not objective towards CTs.
I guess you want me to think it's great to watch lies and propaganda, as long as it fits your narrative. :shrug:
Sorry I'm not a sheep to O'Keefe.

Click to expand...

LOL

It doesn't matter if you think it's a CT. That's your way to run away from the compelling evidence you refuse to consider.

No objectivity = your opinion is meaningless.

That's fine, but don't go foot stomping when you're not taken seriously as a result.

ocean515 said:

LOL

It doesn't matter if you think it's a CT. That's your way to run away from the compelling evidence you refuse to consider.

No objectivity = your opinion is meaningless.

That's fine, but don't go foot stomping when you're not taken seriously as a result.

Click to expand...

Based on all the interactions I have had with O'Keefe's sheeple, if I found even more things wrong with the video, you wouldn't believe me anyway. So what's the point?

ModerateGOP said:

Based on all the interactions I have had with O'Keefe's sheeple, if I found even more things wrong with the video, you wouldn't believe me anyway. So what's the point?

Click to expand...

If you found even more things?

If?

I agree, there is no point.

Have a good day.

ocean515 said:

If you found even more things?

If?

I agree, there is no point.

Have a good day.

Click to expand...

So you see nothing wrong with the content supplied by this Youtube producer then??
As another poster pointed out, I don't trust anything Michael Moore's production company Dog Eat Dog Films, produces either.

You are so willing to trust someone that agrees with you, you end up losing all objectivity yourself.

ModerateGOP said:

I could only stomach maybe about five minutes of it, before I started to lol. Besides the so-called evidence is presented through such rose-colored glasses I could barely force myself to continue watching.

Click to expand...

So what was it that made you laugh out loud?


* Was it the activist Zulema Rodriguez (from Democracy Partners) and Aaron Black (Rapid Response Director for the DNC), both claiming on the video they are responsible for the Chicago riots, and the news footage showing Zulema there in a heated shouting match with a Trump supporter?

* Was it when Zulema, who claimed they were also responsible for shutting down the highway in AZ, was captured on news footage at that Arizona protest?

* Was it Zulema claiming on the Veritas video she had a 1PM conference call with the Hillary Clinton campaign and DNC every day at 1PM, and the hacked Wikileaks email from Creamer to the Communications Director and others at the DNC, reminding them of the 1PM "Trump Rapid Response/Bracketing Call" that day to discuss upcoming Trump rallies?

* Was it the FEC records showing that the Zulema Rodriguez received payment in February of this year directly from the Hillary Clinton campaign? (that's the one that made me lol)

* Was it the White House visitor logs showing Creamer has visited the White house over 300 times in the last seven and a half years, an average of 1 visit every 8 days?

* Was it the emails of the DNC's Communications Director and Deputy Communications Director (where Creamer is mentioned as being filled in), discussing what messages to put on the signs for an upcoming Trump event, where they stated that one of them was already taken care of by Scott Foval's organization, AUFC (Americans United for Change)?

* Maybe it was the video from CNN the day after those emails were sent, showing the exact wording they discussed on several of the signs that AUFC took care of, at a Trump protest CNN was covering?

* Could it be that very same CNN footage showing Aaron Black (Rapid Response Director for the DNC) in the crowd holding up one of those signs?


So tell us, which was the part that made you laugh out loud?


.

Grim17 said:

So what was it that made you laugh out loud?

So tell us, which was the part that made you laugh out loud?

Click to expand...

Let me see:

The title of this youtuber's subscription channel
The title of this video
The claim that the MSM is blacking it out
The pure propaganda pushing to his other videos in the video
The cute little intro where he highlights his own bias and conspiracies
The way he tells people that this is indeed happening without a doubt and that people from the very top reaches of the government know about every little thing campaigns do.
Using an article from abcnews.co and claiming it is the real abcnews.com!!!!!
Using various breitbart articles and claiming they are objective.
Misrepresenting the President's speech.

And that's just off the top of my head! Need I go on? How much more do you need to realize that this video is BS?

ModerateGOP said:

Let me see:

The title of this youtuber's subscription channel
The title of this video
The claim that the MSM is blacking it out
The pure propaganda pushing to his other videos in the video
The cute little intro where he highlights his own bias and conspiracies
The way he tells people that this is indeed happening without a doubt and that people from the very top reaches of the government know about every little thing campaigns do.
Using an article from abcnews.co and claiming it is the real abcnews.com!!!!!
Using various breitbart articles and claiming they are objective.
Misrepresenting the President's speech.

And that's just off the top of my head! Need I go on? How much more do you need to realize that this video is BS?

Click to expand...

Well, you just admitted to watching the entire video, not just the first 5 minutes.

Since that long list of yours didn't address any of the damning evidence from the video that I presented, it must mean you not only can't refute any of it, but assuming you to be a logical, intelligent person, must now acknowledge that the DNC and the Clinton campaign were involved in the planning and financing of events designed to incite violence at Trump rallies.

A simple "I was wrong" will do.

Grim17 said:

Well, you just admitted to watching the entire video, not just the first 5 minutes.

Since that long list of yours didn't address any of the damning evidence from the video that I presented, it must mean you not only can't refute any of it, but assuming you to be a logical, intelligent person, must now acknowledge that the DNC and the Clinton campaign were involved in the planning and financing of events designed to incite violence at Trump rallies.

A simple "I was wrong" will do.

Click to expand...

So someone using the stupid Abcnews.co site as a legit news source to back their claims. Why don't you want to address this?

ModerateGOP said:

Let me see:

1. The title of this youtuber's subscription channel
2. The title of this video
3. The claim that the MSM is blacking it out
4. The pure propaganda pushing to his other videos in the video
5. The cute little intro where he highlights his own bias and conspiracies
6. The way he tells people that this is indeed happening without a doubt and that people from the very top reaches of the government know about every little thing campaigns do.
7. Using an article from abcnews.co and claiming it is the real abcnews.com!!!!!
8. Using various breitbart articles and claiming they are objective.
9. Misrepresenting the President's speech.

And that's just off the top of my head! Need I go on? How much more do you need to realize that this video is BS?

Click to expand...

1, 2, 5, 6, are irrelevant. It is a YouTube channel, and his opinion piece. As I stated earlier, we are not concerned with his opinions...just the FACTS he did present (see below).

3. The MSM is commenting on the Veritas sting, and as shown in the CNN clip, denigrating/dismissing it.

4. It is a YouTube channel. Contributors get paid for number of views from advertising revenues. ALL YouTube contributors push their channels...it's how they make a living.

7. His choice of the ABC website was poor. However, there are other stories in various reputable news media (Like the Washington Times) alleging groups like Move.Org and George Soros are organizing and paying for protests.

8. I didn't see any major use of Brietbart regarding the specific FACTUAL pieces of evidence provided. (see below).

9. He didn't "misrepresent" the President's speech, he used it to underline his opinion. This is an opinion piece supported by some good research, which should not be ignored because of some bad cites for his basic opinion.

HERE are the facts:

A. Robert Creamer visits to White House on the video @ 3.21. https://open.whitehouse.gov/dataset/Robert-Creamer/9vny-arr6/data

B. Video of Zulema Rodruguez @ Chicago Riot on the video @ 3.33 and Arizona blockade on the video @ 3:40.

C. Proof of her daily 1 PM call statement via the Wilileaks email 05/17/16 re: Trump Rapid Response 1 PM Call on video @ 2:31.

D. Payroll records from Federal Elections Commission website showing disbursements from DNC orgs for Zulema Rodriguez in Arizona on video @ 3:00.

E. Wikileak emails dated 05/10/16 and 05/11/16 regarding prep for protest in front of RNC for 05/12/16 identifying Robert Creamer on video @ 3:53.

F. Video of RNC protest 05/12/16 showing prep usage @ 4:25 and conspirator Aaron Black @ 4:34.

That is evidence that you did not refute.

ModerateGOP said:

So you see nothing wrong with the content supplied by this Youtube producer then??
As another poster pointed out, I don't trust anything Michael Moore's production company Dog Eat Dog Films, produces either.

You are so willing to trust someone that agrees with you, you end up losing all objectivity yourself.

Click to expand...

Oh please. You didn't even watch the video, how can you possibly comment on it?

You're spin the Michael Moore is a really weak attempt to support your position.

ModerateGOP said:

So someone using the stupid Abcnews.co site as a legit news source to back their claims. Why don't you want to address this?

Click to expand...

LMAO... You can't even acknowledge the evidence presented, much less address any of it.

I have never witnessed anyone in as much in denial as you are.

.

Captain Adverse said:

1. 1, 2, 5, 6, are irrelevant. It is a YouTube channel, and his opinion piece. As I stated earlier, we are not concerned with his opinions...just the FACTS he did present (see below).

2. The MSM is commenting on the Veritas sting, and as shown in the CNN clip, denigrating/dismissing it.

3. It is a YouTube channel. Contributors get paid for number of views from advertising revenues. ALL YouTube contributors push their channels...it's how they make a living.

4. His choice of the ABC website was poor. However, there are other stories in various reputable news media (Like the Washington Times) alleging groups like Move.Org and George Soros are organizing and paying for protests.

Click to expand...

1. It's relevant to me and my opinion about the piece and where it came from

2. And rightly so. I wish they would be questioning these things as much as I am, but dismissing it out of hand is good enough.

3. I like my blog, but I don't pretend that I am making a living off of it, and I don't think this guy is either. If he was smart enough he would have set up ads through adsense. He is just happy to push his propaganda videos whether he makes any money off of them or not. Besides youtube payrate PER Click on Ads, not video views is about .30 per click to about $4, depending on the keyword used. This is of course if he was smart enough to use adsense and I am not seeing that type of advertising trick used in this video so it's not likely, he is getting paid at all. Looks like he is just a shill for the CT world and proud to be of service for free. You are again making an assumption

4. LOL the Washington Times is NOT Reputable, either! :lamo Don't confuse that with the Washington Post which is.

I'm done here. I can't take this foolishness anymore.

Grim17 said:

LMAO... You can't even acknowledge the evidence presented, much less address any of it.

I have never witnessed anyone in as much in denial as you are.

.

Click to expand...

You mean the fake evidence from the fake site??? Really?

Captain Adverse said:

1, 2, 5, 6, are irrelevant. It is a YouTube channel, and his opinion piece. As I stated earlier, we are not concerned with his opinions...just the FACTS he did present (see below).

3. The MSM is commenting on the Veritas sting, and as shown in the CNN clip, denigrating/dismissing it.

4. It is a YouTube channel. Contributors get paid for number of views from advertising revenues. ALL YouTube contributors push their channels...it's how they make a living.

7. His choice of the ABC website was poor. However, there are other stories in various reputable news media (Like the Washington Times) alleging groups like Move.Org and George Soros are organizing and paying for protests.

8. I didn't see any major use of Brietbart regarding the specific FACTUAL pieces of evidence provided. (see below).

9. He didn't "misrepresent" the President's speech, he used it to underline his opinion. This is an opinion piece supported by some good research, which should not be ignored because of some bad cites for his basic opinion.

HERE are the facts:

A. Robert Creamer visits to White House on the video @ 3.21. https://open.whitehouse.gov/dataset/Robert-Creamer/9vny-arr6/data

B. Video of Zulema Rodruguez @ Chicago Riot on the video @ 3.33 and Arizona blockade on the video @ 3:40.

C. Proof of her daily 1 PM call statement via the Wilileaks email 05/17/16 re: Trump Rapid Response 1 PM Call on video @ 2:31.

D. Payroll records from Federal Elections Commission website showing disbursements from DNC orgs for Zulema Rodriguez in Arizona on video @ 3:00.

E. Wikileak emails dated 05/10/16 and 05/11/16 regarding prep for protest in front of RNC for 05/12/16 identifying Robert Creamer on video @ 3:53.

F. Video of RNC protest 05/12/16 showing prep usage @ 4:25 and conspirator Aaron Black @ 4:34.

That is evidence that you did not refute.

Click to expand...

Excellent post... The only thing you missed, was the involvement of Scott Foval's organisation "Americans United for Change" being pointed out in those emails from point "E".

ModerateGOP has no intention of discussing the evidence presented in that video, or engaging in any kind of honest dialog. He proved that on the first Project Veritas thread using the same dishonest tactics.

.

ModerateGOP said:

You mean the fake evidence from the fake site??? Really?

Click to expand...

Now we're getting somewhere...

You say the evidence is fake... What evidence specifically would that be and what can you present to corroborate that?

To make an accusation like that without corroboration, is something only political hacks and trolls do... Since I know you are neither of those, I look forward to seeing the evidence that substantiates your accusations.

Grim17 said:

Now we're getting somewhere...

You say the evidence is fake... What evidence specifically would that be and what can you present to corroborate that?

To make an accusation like that without corroboration, is something only political hacks and trolls do... Since I know you are neither of those, I look forward to seeing the evidence that substantiates your accusations.

Click to expand...

Articles taken from ABCNews.co for starters. I already said this.

ModerateGOP said:

Articles taken from ABCNews.co for starters. I already said this.

Click to expand...

I don't find that credible myself, which is why I never presented it in my post. But just because an item(s) doesn't pass the smell test, doesn't mean it invalidates everything that was presented.

I only addressed the evidence in the video that had a measure of credibility to it and/or can be easily substantiated. What I don't understand, is why you refuse to do the same?

You are interested in the truth... aren't you?

Grim17 said:

I don't find that credible myself, which is why I never presented it in my post. But just because an item(s) doesn't pass the smell test, doesn't mean it invalidates everything that was presented.

I only addressed the evidence in the video that had a measure of credibility to it and/or can be easily substantiated. What I don't understand, is why you refuse to do the same?

You are interested in the truth... aren't you?

Click to expand...

If a guy is willing to use fake news sites to back up his claims, I don't put much stock in anything else he might have to say. :shrug: Just my humble opinion.

ModerateGOP said:

If a guy is willing to use fake news sites to back up his claims, I don't put much stock in anything else he might have to say. :shrug: Just my humble opinion.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that you are not interested in any evidence, legitimate or not, because the guy on the video presented it?

Facts are facts and the truth is the truth... That doesn't change based on who it comes from. Claiming that it does, which if I'm not mistaken is exactly what you've been doing thus far on this thread, is a cowards way of avoiding uncomfortable truths that might challenge their beliefs and world view.

You are either interested in discerning what is true, or more interested in protecting yourself from it...

So what's it going to be?
.

Grim17 said:

Are you saying that you are not interested in any evidence, legitimate or not, because the guy on the video presented it?

Facts are facts and the truth is the truth... That doesn't change based on who it comes from. Claiming that it does, which if I'm not mistaken is exactly what you've been doing thus far on this thread, is a cowards way of avoiding uncomfortable truths that might challenge their beliefs and world view.

You are either interested in discerning what is true, or more interested in protecting yourself from it...

So what's it going to be?
.

Click to expand...

It certainly does change based on who it is coming from. To say so otherwise would be dishonest. Would you trust a car mechanic to operate on your leg? Even if he says cars are just like people? NO you wouldn't! You would go to a doctor, unless you are one of those people who hates doctors, there is no reason to believe the car mechanic even if he tries to persuade you that cars are just like people and that they are similar to work on. He is not a reputable person in that industry.

The presenter has to be credible in order to make incredible claims, and even then I am suspicious until they have backed up peer-reviewed evidence from other reputable figures in whatever industry is being discussed.

Even if all of that checks out I've seen where there are fake credentials, and even fake experts this is frequent in the 9/11 truther videos or miracle cure concoctions.

So first I look at the presenter's history before I go feet first into whatever he plans on selling me. EVERYONE SHOULD DO THIS! It would put all the tricksters, con artists and a lot of sales-people out of business.

Grim17 said:

Facts are facts and the truth is the truth... That doesn't change based on who it comes from.

ModerateGOP said:

It certainly does change based on who it is coming from. To say so otherwise would be dishonest.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

OMFG... That is the single most ridiculous and dishonest statement I've seen on this forum in 2016.

How could you embarrass yourself like that? I know you want to cling to the lie that Hillary and the DNC are as pure as the driven snow, but my God man, have you no dignity, no pride?

The presenter has to be credible in order to make incredible claims, and even then I am suspicious until they have backed up peer-reviewed evidence from other reputable figures in whatever industry is being discussed.

Click to expand...

Peer reviewed evidence... ROFLMMFAO

Even if all of that checks out I've seen where there are fake credentials, and even fake experts this is frequent in the 9/11 truther videos or miracle cure concoctions.

Click to expand...

What in the hell are you talking about?

What fake evidence? Link please

What fake experts? Link please


Here's some of those "facts" that aren't facts in your universe because the guy on the video said it... lmao

Zulema Rodriguez

Caught on video having a heated exchange with a Trump supporter at the Trump event in Chicago, where violence broke out.
She admitted her and Aaron Black were responsible for that event. Aaron Black confirmed this in a separate hidden camera confession, giving Bob Creamer the majority of credit for what took place.

Caught on video a few weeks later at the Arizona event where activists shut down a highway.
She admitted she was responsible for that on hidden camera.

Said she has conference calls at 1PM daily with the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign.
Email from Bob Creamer to the DNC's Communication Director, reminding her of a 1PM conference call to discuss upcoming Trump events. That establishes that there are in fact 1PM conference calls with the DNC about the planning of Trump events.... Then there's the Disbursements data from the Federal Elections Commission website, showing that in February of this year, Rodriguez was paid over $1,600.00 by the Hillary Clinton campaign (Hillary for America), which ties her financially to Hillary's campaign.


All 3 statements by Rodriguez and the evidence supporting them, make it clear that she not only participates in events around the country to incite violence at Trump rallies, and does so in conjunction with Democracy Partners (Bob Creamer's organisation) and the DNC, but based on her financial ties, lends credibility to her claim of being involved in the planning of these events through daily communications with the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC.