Was O'Keefe Sting Really A False Narrative?

Captain Adverse · Oct 28, 2016

I have to admit that I did not trust the original O'Keefe sting regarding Planned Parenthood, and was happy to find out it was not as cut-and-dried as originally portrayed.

But I found more credence in his recent sting regarding DNC efforts to incite incidents discrediting Trump and his rallies. Still, I felt somewhat concerned about it's veracity when considering the Planned Parenthood propaganda piece.

Then I found this video which provides clearly recorded links with the people who are discussing their acts of sabotage in his recent video:

It's seems clear to me that O'Keefe's recent sting video has a much firmer grounding in fact regarding much of the recent violence being organized, bought, and paid for by elements of the DNC.

Watch this video yourselves, and make up your own mind.

Grim17 · Oct 28, 2016

Captain Adverse said:
I have to admit that I did not trust the original O'Keefe sting regarding Planned Parenthood, and was happy to find out it was not as cut-and-dried as originally portrayed.

But I found more credence in his recent sting regarding DNC efforts to incite incidents discrediting Trump and his rallies. Still, I felt somewhat concerned about it's veracity when considering the Planned Parenthood propaganda piece.

Then I found this video which provides clearly recorded links with the people who are discussing their acts of sabotage in his recent video:

It's seems clear to me that O'Keefe's recent sting video has a much firmer grounding in fact regarding much of the recent violence being organized, bought, and paid for by elements of the DNC.

Watch this video yourselves, and make up your own mind.

The Planned Parenthood sting was carried out by the Center for Medical Progress, not O'Keefe and Project Veritas.

Captain Adverse · Oct 28, 2016

Grim17 said:
The Planned Parenthood sting was carried out by the Center for Medical Progress, not O'Keefe and Project Veritas.

Hmm, then which prior stings which were proven false is everyone referring to? I mean I found this:

An individual named David Daleiden has been widely credited as the "leader" of the Center for Medical Progress. While Daleiden's online footprint is minimal, a 2009 Claremont University article (penned by fellow conservative activist Chuck Johnson) reported:

James O'Keefe is a friend of David Daleiden's. O'Keefe and Hannah Giles have been going coast to coast documenting instances of ACORN employees willingly giving advice on how to avoid paying taxes and shielding a would be pimp (running for congress) and a prostitutent from the watchful eye of the law. They've brought their investigation to New York City, Washington D.C., and Baltimore.

O'Keefe came to prominence in 2009 after he produced "egregiously misleading" and "severely edited" videos targeting agencies such as ACORN." [Snopes.com, 7/14/15]

The Shady Anti-Choice Actors Behind The Deceptive Video Accusing Planned Parenthood Of "Selling Aborted Baby Parts"

So it appears (at least according to SNOPES and Mediamatters) that there is some suspicion of a link there with O'Keefe. :shrug:

Grim17 · Oct 28, 2016

Captain Adverse said:
I have to admit that I did not trust the original O'Keefe sting regarding Planned Parenthood, and was happy to find out it was not as cut-and-dried as originally portrayed.

But I found more credence in his recent sting regarding DNC efforts to incite incidents discrediting Trump and his rallies. Still, I felt somewhat concerned about it's veracity when considering the Planned Parenthood propaganda piece.

Then I found this video which provides clearly recorded links with the people who are discussing their acts of sabotage in his recent video:

It's seems clear to me that O'Keefe's recent sting video has a much firmer grounding in fact regarding much of the recent violence being organized, bought, and paid for by elements of the DNC.

Watch this video yourselves, and make up your own mind.

I already debunked the "hypothetical conversation" and "taken out of context" claims from the first video.

What was said was stated as fact, not hypothetical, and I posted a screenshot of 3 separate conversations, by 3 different men, that were each taken from a continuous, unedited piece of video. It showed that it was in context and each conversation tied to the other 2.

Grim17 · Oct 28, 2016

Captain Adverse said:
Hmm, then which prior stings which were proven false is everyone referring to? I mean I found this:

The Shady Anti-Choice Actors Behind The Deceptive Video Accusing Planned Parenthood Of "Selling Aborted Baby Parts"

So it appears (at least according to SNOPES and Mediamatters) that there is some suspicion of a link there with O'Keefe. :shrug:

They did the ACORN videos and were also accused of doctoring those videos... To this very day, not one person on this forum or anywhere else on the net has ever been able to produce one example of those videos being edited or manipulated in such a way, that they misquoted or misrepresented what those people said and advocated for on those videos... I have asked for that proof more times than I can count. The thing that makes that so telling is, that every single one of the full length, unedited ACORN videos was released publicly, so anyone could easily compare the edited versions to the unedited ones. If they had been doctored as claimed by so many here, on the net, and in the media, you would think that somebody, somewhere would have posted the proof on the internet, but it has never happened.

btw, thank you for that video... That is the best (and only) real investigative analysis I've seen of those videos yet. It will be very hard for people to dismiss the evidence presented on it. Unfortunately though, the mainstream media will still ignore them... at least until after the election.

NeverTrump · Oct 28, 2016

Captain Adverse said:
I have to admit that I did not trust the original O'Keefe sting regarding Planned Parenthood, and was happy to find out it was not as cut-and-dried as originally portrayed.

But I found more credence in his recent sting regarding DNC efforts to incite incidents discrediting Trump and his rallies. Still, I felt somewhat concerned about it's veracity when considering the Planned Parenthood propaganda piece.

Then I found this video which provides clearly recorded links with the people who are discussing their acts of sabotage in his recent video:

It's seems clear to me that O'Keefe's recent sting video has a much firmer grounding in fact regarding much of the recent violence being organized, bought, and paid for by elements of the DNC.

Watch this video yourselves, and make up your own mind.

There are a lot of problems with this video and the way it was produced. At first we are presented with the always wonderful YT advertising technique of spreading the youtube channel that this piece belongs to. This is very popular on Conspiracy Theory channels. So what do I do, before I ever watch any of these WATCH THIS FOR THE TRUTH, videos?? I actually do what they say and check out the channel. In this case that channel is ThinkOutsideTheTV.

Despite the really stupid name, I checked out what other videos that I would be subjected to if I ever clicked subscribed on anything from youtube. What did I see? I saw videos about aliens and area 51, Sandy Hook Shooting Conspiracy Theories, 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Videos, Putin Praising Videos, Pro Trump and Pro Ron Paul videos, Cop Bashing Videos, Chemtrails Videos. The list goes on. Anything this channel says is bunk. There is nothing reputable there. Don't believe me look for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/user/ThinkOutsideTheTV/videos?shelf_id=1&view=0&sort=p

What's more dangerous is the guy in charge of this channel actually thinks that he is affecting the election in some way and there are conspiracies out to get him and stop him from "telling the truth." Can we move this to the CT Forum now, please?

NeverTrump · Oct 28, 2016

Grim17 said:
I already debunked the "hypothetical conversation" and "taken out of context" claims from the first video.

LOL you never debunked anything and never answered any of my questions. Stop repeating yourself grim. You are now just posting more CT videos to back up your claims. Would it make you feel better if I posted videos about Bigfoot sightings also?

Grim17 · Oct 28, 2016

ModerateGOP said:
There are a lot of problems with this video and the way it was produced. At first we are presented with the always wonderful YT advertising technique of spreading the youtube channel that this piece belongs to. This is very popular on Conspiracy Theory channels. So what do I do, before I ever watch any of these WATCH THIS FOR THE TRUTH, videos?? I actually do what they say and check out the channel. In this case that channel is ThinkOutsideTheTV.

Despite the really stupid name, I checked out what other videos that I would be subjected to if I ever clicked subscribed on anything from youtube. What did I see? I saw videos about aliens and area 51, Sandy Hook Shooting Conspiracy Theories, 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Videos, Putin Praising Videos, Pro Trump and Pro Ron Paul videos, Cop Bashing Videos, Chemtrails Videos. The list goes on. Anything this channel says is bunk. There is nothing reputable there. Don't believe me look for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/user/ThinkOutsideTheTV/videos?shelf_id=1&view=0&sort=p

What's more dangerous is the guy in charge of this channel actually thinks that he is affecting the election in some way and there are conspiracies out to get him and stop him from "telling the truth." Can we move this to the CT Forum now, please?

If you're not going to watch the video, then what in the hell are you doing here?

The topic of this thread is that video and the evidence it presents... evidence that I suspect you will have nothing to say about because it destroys your entire "They are innocent... they were framed" defense of the DNC and the Clinton campaign.

.

NeverTrump · Oct 29, 2016

Grim17 said:
If you're not going to watch the video, then what in the hell are you doing here?

The topic of this thread is that video and the evidence it presents... evidence that I suspect you will have nothing to say about because it destroys your entire "They are innocent... they were framed" defense of the DNC and the Clinton campaign.

.

So you really don't have a problem with the stuff I found in a five second Youtube search?? Really???

Grim17 · Oct 29, 2016

ModerateGOP said:
So you really don't have a problem with the stuff I found in a five second Youtube search?? Really???

Look, you can attack the source till the cows come home, but until you watch the video and comment on the evidence it presents, your posts are meaningless.

Are you a hack trying to derail this thread, or an honest human being interested in discussing the contents of the video that's the topic of this thread?

NeverTrump · Oct 29, 2016

Grim17 said:
Look, you can attack the source till the cows come home, but until you watch the video and comment on the evidence it presents, your posts are meaningless.

Are you a hack trying to derail this thread, or an honest human being interested in discussing the contents of the video that's the topic of this thread?

So you have no problems with all of the other material on his channel??? None of that bugs you? None of that makes you question this video either?

You can't be honest without considering the source. Aren't you the one always complaining about bias...

Grim17 · Oct 29, 2016

ModerateGOP said:
So you have no problems with all of the other material on his channel??? None of that bugs you? None of that makes you question this video either?

You can't be honest without considering the source. Aren't you the one always complaining about bias...

It seems I have my answer.

Come back when you're interested in discussing the topic.

NeverTrump · Oct 29, 2016

Grim17 said:
It seems I have my answer.

Come back when you're interested in discussing the topic.

The topic is nothing but CT Clickbait. Enjoy living in lalala land.

Captain Adverse · Oct 29, 2016

ModerateGOP said:
There are a lot of problems with this video and the way it was produced. At first we are presented with the always wonderful YT advertising technique of spreading the youtube channel that this piece belongs to. This is very popular on Conspiracy Theory channels. So what do I do, before I ever watch any of these WATCH THIS FOR THE TRUTH, videos?? I actually do what they say and check out the channel. In this case that channel is ThinkOutsideTheTV...Can we move this to the CT Forum now, please?

So, you check out the "source" but then assume that the information in the video is wrong because other videos involve other "conspiracy theories." Without watching to see what was actually presented in THIS video?

Ignoring the fact that I state in my OP:

"Then I found this video which provides clearly recorded links with the people who are discussing their acts of sabotage in his recent video." Records you can verify yourself, had you watched the actual video.

What do you do instead?

ModerateGOP said:
So you really don't have a problem with the stuff I found in a five second Youtube search?? Really???

ModerateGOP said:
So you have no problems with all of the other material on his channel??? None of that bugs you? None of that makes you question this video either?

You can't be honest without considering the source. Aren't you the one always complaining about bias...

Why, you attack the person/source! Smacks of Hillary's "the Russians are hacking and trying to influence the elections" dismissal...despite the fact the emails revealed are patently legitimate. :roll:

If you are unwilling to actually review the materials being presented, preferring to bury your head in the sand using any excuse to avoid even the possibility something conflicts with your worldview, why should anyone take your positions seriously?

NeverTrump · Oct 29, 2016

Captain Adverse said:
So, you check out the "source" but then assume that the information in the video is wrong because other videos involve other "conspiracy theories." Without watching to see what was actually presented in THIS video?

If you are unwilling to actually review the materials being presented, preferring to bury your head in the sand using any excuse to avoid even the possibility something conflicts with your worldview, why should anyone take your positions seriously?

Yes, if there is nothing on this dude's Youtube channel other than other CT Clickbait crap, then I will assume that this video is one and the same. How is that hard to understand??
Not to mention that is what I and many other posters said the original O'keefe videos were as well as all his other ones.

I mean you guys might have a case here if O'Keefe was a reputable journalist and this youtube channel was hosted by some independent media personality, that's a stretch though because I don't tend to double down on Youtube videos to find those that match my opinions and claim it as gospel. Since I usually take any "investigative news source" on youtube with a grain of salt. That old saying, "don't believe everything you read on the internet," comes in play here. Though occasionally I'll post something funny from late night.

To post a CT video to back up another CT video is not evidence of anything. It's no different than two CT Youtubers claiming that Area 51 holds alien spaceships with no evidence to back it up. You really don't see the problem with using a CT Video as evidence to prove your CT????

Captain Adverse · Oct 29, 2016

ModerateGOP said:
Yes, if there is nothing on this dude's Youtube channel other than other CT Clickbait crap, then I will assume that this video is one and the same. How is that hard to understand??
Not to mention that is what I and many other posters said the original O'keefe videos were as well as all his other ones.

I mean you guys might have a case here if O'Keefe was a reputable journalist and this youtube channel was hosted by some independent media personality, that's a stretch though because I don't tend to double down on Youtube videos to find those that match my opinions and claim it as gospel. Since I usually take any "investigative news source" on youtube with a grain of salt. Though occasionally I'll post something funny from late night.

To post a CT video to back up another CT video is not evidence of anything. It's no different than two CT Youtubers claiming that Area 51 holds alien spaceships with no evidence to back it up. You really don't see the problem with using a CT Video as evidence to prove your CT????

Well, I have a problem when someone dismisses it as "CT" despite the fact that actual hard evidence is presented in the video:

As in video of one of the conspirators at two of the most famous early incidents, one of which she bragged about in the Veritas video. Along with public record evidence of payment's to her for services to the DNC, and wikileak email evidence of her "daily 1 PM DNC planning telephone calls."

As in wikileak email evidence of DNC instructions to another conspirator to prep for another rally, and video of a third conspirator at that rally with the suggested preparations. Etc., etc., etc.. Something you haven't seen because you "assume" nothing to see here.

You do know the old "ass u & me" joke about assuming, right? :coffeepap:

P.S.: I am not arguing about the video creator's personal bias and opinions, only arguing that he did present evidence which shows the Veritas video seems factual.

NeverTrump · Oct 29, 2016

Captain Adverse said:
Well, I have a problem when someone dismisses it as "CT" despite the fact that actual hard evidence is presented in the video:

As in video of one of the conspirators at two of the most famous early incidents, one of which she bragged about in the Veritas video. Along with public record evidence of payment's to her for services to the DNC, and wikileak email evidence of her "daily 1 PM DNC planning telephone calls."

As in wikileak email evidence of DNC instructions to another conspirator to prep for another rally, and video of a third conspirator at that rally with the suggested preparations. Etc., etc., etc.. Something you haven't seen because you "assume" nothing to see here.

You do know the old "ass u & me" joke about assuming, right? :coffeepap:

P.S.: I am not arguing about the video creator's personal bias and opinions, only arguing that he did present evidence which shows the Veritas video seems factual.

I am perfectly content in saying that there is nothing to this. You cannot seriously take this guy's word for it. Just as much as you cannot seriously take O'Keefe's word for it. Anybody who willingly sits down to get interviewed by the Alex Jones show to talk about a rebellion if Trump loses, doesn't deserve credibility or a platform in my book, though I do understand why it's easier to believe them. Since that's all this crowd does is sell you on this stuff in order to brainwash you about stuff that isn't really happening.

I know it's difficult to point out CT Lore to those who have bought it hook line and sinker, but just because two guys post videos about UFO sightings and both mention the Roswell Crash, it doesn't mean UFOs exist. How is that so hard for you to understand??? How many times do I have to post the same example in order for you to get it?? CT Circumstantial evidence, doesn't make it real!

Captain Adverse · Oct 29, 2016

ModerateGOP said:
I am perfectly content in saying that there is nothing to this. You cannot seriously take this guy's word for it. Just as much as you cannot seriously take O'Keefe's word for it. Anybody who willingly sits down to get interviewed by the Alex Jones show to talk about a rebellion if Trump loses, doesn't deserve credibility or a platform in my book, though I do understand why it's easier to believe them. Since that's all this crowd does is sell you on this stuff in order to brainwash you about stuff that isn't really happening.

I know it's difficult to point out CT Lore to those who have bought it hook line and sinker, but just because two guys post videos about UFO sightings and both mention the Roswell Crash, it doesn't mean UFOs exist. How is that so hard for you to understand??? How many times do I have to post the same example in order for you to get it?? CT Circumstantial evidence, doesn't make it real!

Straw man arguments. :doh

How is it so hard for YOU to understand that you've spent more time trying to debunk something you haven't even examined yourself than it would take to simply LOOK and make a truly informed decision?

No actual counter-arguments to the evidence presented; just avoidance, rationalizations, and denial.

Can you not see the hypocrisy of your position?

Grim17 · Oct 29, 2016

Captain Adverse said:
Straw man arguments. :doh

How is it so hard for YOU to understand that you've spent more time trying to debunk something you haven't even examined yourself than it would take to simply LOOK and make a truly informed decision?

No actual counter-arguments to the evidence presented; just avoidance, rationalizations, and denial.

Can you not see the hypocrisy of your position?

I'm going to go out on a limb here... My guess is, he watched the video before he ever made his first post on this thread. When he saw just how compelling the evidence was, he did the only thing he could to protect his beliefs.... Attack the source and pretend he never watched it.

That's my gut feeling anyway.

.

ocean515 · Oct 29, 2016

Grim17 said:
I'm going to go out on a limb here... My guess is, he watched the video before he ever made his first post on this thread. When he saw just how compelling the evidence was, he did the only thing he could to protect his beliefs.... Attack the source and pretend he never watched it.

That's my gut feeling anyway.

.

I'd back your gut feeling.

Typical of so many, rather than discuss the quite compelling evidence in the video, there is an immediate pivot to attack the veracity of creator.

I suppose if the objective is to crush one's credibility, the mission was accomplished with this poster.

Hack is an appropriate label.

Deuce · Oct 29, 2016

ocean515 said:
I'd back your gut feeling.

Typical of so many, rather than discuss the quite compelling evidence in the video, there is an immediate pivot to attack the veracity of creator.

I suppose if the objective is to crush one's credibility, the mission was accomplished with this poster.

Hack is an appropriate label.

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.

NeverTrump · Oct 29, 2016

Captain Adverse said:
Straw man arguments. :doh

How is it so hard for YOU to understand that you've spent more time trying to debunk something you haven't even examined yourself than it would take to simply LOOK and make a truly informed decision?

No actual counter-arguments to the evidence presented; just avoidance, rationalizations, and denial.

Can you not see the hypocrisy of your position?

I'm not going to get informed by watching CT videos. More like misled! Your willingness to label my arguments as straw man shows you haven't even begun to understand my point. Tell me why should I believe this video when all the other videos on the channel are BS? I'll wait for your response.

rocket88 · Oct 29, 2016

Captain Adverse said:
I have to admit that I did not trust the original O'Keefe sting regarding Planned Parenthood, and was happy to find out it was not as cut-and-dried as originally portrayed.

But I found more credence in his recent sting regarding DNC efforts to incite incidents discrediting Trump and his rallies. Still, I felt somewhat concerned about it's veracity when considering the Planned Parenthood propaganda piece.

Then I found this video which provides clearly recorded links with the people who are discussing their acts of sabotage in his recent video:

It's seems clear to me that O'Keefe's recent sting video has a much firmer grounding in fact regarding much of the recent violence being organized, bought, and paid for by elements of the DNC.

Watch this video yourselves, and make up your own mind.

Never trust O'Keefe. He is not interested in truth, only in pushing the Conservative narrative.

NeverTrump · Oct 29, 2016

Grim17 said:
I'm going to go out on a limb here... My guess is, he watched the video before he ever made his first post on this thread. When he saw just how compelling the evidence was, he did the only thing he could to protect his beliefs.... Attack the source and pretend he never watched it.

That's my gut feeling anyway.

.

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.

rocket88 · Oct 29, 2016

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.

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

Was O'Keefe Sting Really A False Narrative?

Classical Liberal Sage

Battle Ready

Classical Liberal Sage

Battle Ready

Battle Ready

Exposing GOP since 2015

Exposing GOP since 2015

Battle Ready

Exposing GOP since 2015

Battle Ready

Exposing GOP since 2015

Battle Ready

Exposing GOP since 2015

Classical Liberal Sage

Exposing GOP since 2015

Classical Liberal Sage

Exposing GOP since 2015

Classical Liberal Sage

Battle Ready

Outer space potato man

Exposing GOP since 2015

Mod Conspiracy Theorist

Exposing GOP since 2015

Mod Conspiracy Theorist