• 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!

Project Veritas preparing to unleash a new expose on the media.

ultmd said:
You're drawing the conclusions you seek from his statements, Grim. He CLEARLY stated that the videos were "heavily edited" in order to present the picture that O'Keefe wanted to present in his effort to damage ACORN's reputation and credibility.
Click to expand...

What I highlighted is the problem... You are talking about the organization as a whole, while I am talking about the individuals who were videotaped and presented on those videos.

What I said is the truth. None of those employees, including Mr. Vera, was the victim of clever editing. Everything they said and did on those videos, was presented in context and did not misrepresent what took place at those meetings.

It's the job of people like the California AG, ACORN investigators and anyone else who believes that those video tapes misrepresented the words and actions of those ACORN employees, to substantiate that claim. The complete unedited audio and the full transcripts were released to the public over 7 years ago and not one person has ever produced an example to substantiate those accusations... not even the California AG who examined the full, unedited videotapes as part of their investigation.

The reason no example has ever been produced, is because those employees were not misrepresented in those videos. So you can piss and moan, and claim otherwise until the cows come home, but that won't change a damned thing, nor will it make you look less foolish.

.
 
Grim17 said:
That's a bogus statement in Wikipedia.



Take a look at this:



In the AG's report, it said he called his cousin and left him a message on voice mail right after the meeting, which I don't doubt. Vera didn't give any details on that message about underage prostitution or human smuggling, which strikes me as very strange.

After that, the AG report starts to not make much sense. See if you agree. The meeting with Giles and O'Keefe happened on Tuesday August 18th, and the phone records confirm Vera called his cousin right after the meeting that day. In the video, the smuggling of the girls was to take place "this weekend" on Saturday, which would be the 22nd. According to the AG report, "Vera eventually spoke with Detective Hernandez on August 27, 2009". That is 9 days after the meeting and 5 days after the girls would have been smuggled into the country. Of course the report refers to phone records on every call between Vera and his cousin, verifying they took place.

Then (from an interview with Vera) on the 28th "Vera attempted to acquire more information as Detective Hernandez had requested. He sent O’Keefe and Giles an email at the address Giles had given him. The email asked them to call
him. A short time later, O’Keefe called Vera’s cell phone. O’Keefe said the girls would be crossing in Tijuana, but did not give any other details." This is all happening a week after the girls were supposed to have been brought to the US and what strikes me as even more strange, is the report did not verify with phone records, any of the many calls Vera claimed to have had with O'Keefe. Finally, this from the report: "Several days passed and Vera played phone tag with Detective Hernandez. The first videos of ACORN employees began to surface and Vera realized that O’Keefe and Giles had been acting. He contacted Detective Hernandez on approximately September 11, 2009 and told him the whole thing was a set up and to disregard it." Vera finally manages to gets in touch with his cousin 2 weeks after he obtained information from O'Keefe? Let me also add, that nowhere in that report do they ever present anything from O'Keefe or Giles concerning the San Diego ACORN sting.

Not only is that report on the San Diego incident one sided and exclusively from the perspective of Vera, his co-worker friend and his cousin, their "phone record verified" dates don't match up to the dates laid out during the August 18th meeting with O'Keefe . A meeting where Vera gave O'Keefe his private number and told O'Keefe at the end of the tape to call him, not the other way around. Then when you take into account that the police not only didn't track down O'Keefe through the phone number he gave Vera, they didn't even call to question him. This is human smuggling and child prostitution we're talking about here, not failure to pay a parking ticket.

Doesn't all that sound a bit fishy to you?





I knew that you wouldn't answer, because that's the way the left always deals with common sense and logic when it contradicts their political narratives.

Oh btw... If you still want to stick to the false assertion that the AG said that O'Keefe's lying and editing resulted in those workers being misrepresented in those videos, here's the link to the report so you can back that assertion up:

http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1888_acorn_report.pdf
Click to expand...

On that day:

He left a voicemail message for Detective Hernandez stating that some “crazy people” were in his office providing information. Vera did not explain the substance of the conversation and did not make reference to prostitution or human smuggling on the message. He asked his cousin to call him back. Later that day, Vera also reported the incident to fellow ACORN employee Cruz Acosta. Acosta had been away from the office while the couple was present. Vera explained to him what happened. Vera also reported the incident, either the same day or shortly thereafter, to Mar Murrillon, an ACORN board member. Vera told Murrillon that he had reported the incident to the police. (Vera Interview.) Vera eventually spoke with Detective Hernandez on August 27, 2009.
Click to expand...

You're out of your mind. Oh, and I didn't say anything about the AG. You're confusing me with the 5 other people pointing out that you're trying to justify the illegal actions of a lying con man.
 
Grim17 said:
Part 1
Part 2

.
Click to expand...

Good job, thanks!
looking at the first part, at the 6:20 mark

Vera is saying he works with the district lawyers(attorney's), and O'Keefe says that's not good , Vera says that's not good, and then he's cut off.

That's creative editing.
 
CletusWilbury said:
Good job, thanks!
looking at the first part, at the 6:20 mark

Vera is saying he works with the district lawyers(attorney's), and O'Keefe says that's not good , Vera says that's not good, and then he's cut off.

That's creative editing.
Click to expand...

What makes you think that what followed was significant?

Since nobody, including Vera and those who investigated the incident, have ever claimed that that instance, or any other instance in the released video, was edited in order to hide something that would have changed the public's perception of the conversation that took place, why would you think so?

I realize we are on different sides of the political fence, but I assure you what I have said is the truth and I am not covering for O'Keefe. The Attorney General in California investigated the encounter that was videotaped in San Diego, and did so with the full, unedited video footage taken by O'Keefe. I read the entire report and never once did they allude to any instance where the the pubic video had been edited to misrepresent Mr. Vera's words or actions. You can read it yourself here.

Shortly after all the videos had been released, ACORN hired former Massachusetts attorney general Scott Harshbarger and his associate Amy Crafts, to investigate what happened concerning those videos and to evaluate the group’s management. Keep in mind, they are not independent, unbiased investigators, they were hired by ACORN. Based on that investigation, they produced a 47 page report (see it here) where they compared the edited videos O'Keefe originally released, to the unedited audio and full transcripts. Just like in the AG's report in California, they didn't mention or allude to any instance where the edited videos had misrepresented any of the conversations that took place with any of ACORN's employees. The only discrepancy they found was that the clothing O'Keefe wore at the beginning of each of those videos, was not what he had worn to the actual meetings themselves.

A few months later in March of 2010, NY Times public editor Clark Hoyt wrote a piece titled "The Acorn Sting Revisited". For that article he interviewed Scott Harshbarger and quoted him saying “They said what they said. There’s no way to make this look good.” . I strongly recommend you read the article, because it takes an objective look at the whole situation. You can read it here.

I appreciate your civility and the fact you are looking at this objectively, instead of taking political sides on this.

.
 
Grim17 said:
What makes you think that what followed was significant?

Since nobody, including Vera and those who investigated the incident, have ever claimed that that instance, or any other instance in the released video, was edited in order to hide something that would have changed the public's perception of the conversation that took place, why would you think so?
...
A few months later in March of 2010, NY Times public editor Clark Hoyt wrote a piece titled "The Acorn Sting Revisited". For that article he interviewed Scott Harshbarger and quoted him saying “They said what they said. There’s no way to make this look good.” . I strongly recommend you read the article, because it takes an objective look at the whole situation. You can read it here.

...
Click to expand...

From Hoyt:

...
But the most damning words match the transcripts and the audio, and do not seem out of context...
Click to expand...

That does support your side of this discussion. I found this one interesting: A Last Word on The Acorn Matter

...
Bill O’Reilly, on his Fox News program “The O’Reilly Factor,” accused me of a “blatant lie” in my May 17 column about allegations that The Times killed an investigative story that could have been a “game-changer” in the presidential election.
...
He edited a voicemail from a Times reporter to a confidential source to leave out crucial information that undercut his premise.
...
Click to expand...

One wonders if the victims of O'Keefe's ruse could identify "crucial information that undercut his premise".
 
Grim17 said:
What makes you think that what followed was significant?

Since nobody, including Vera and those who investigated the incident, have ever claimed that that instance, or any other instance in the released video, was edited in order to hide something that would have changed the public's perception of the conversation that took place, why would you think so?

I realize we are on different sides of the political fence, but I assure you what I have said is the truth and I am not covering for O'Keefe. The Attorney General in California investigated the encounter that was videotaped in San Diego, and did so with the full, unedited video footage taken by O'Keefe. I read the entire report and never once did they allude to any instance where the the pubic video had been edited to misrepresent Mr. Vera's words or actions. You can read it yourself here
Click to expand...

You say what? You read the whole thing and it wouldn't have changed the public's perceptions? So you missed parts like this?

On November 16, 2009, O’Keefe released an edited videotape of his conversation with Harris.15
On November 19, 2009, O’Keefe released an edited videotape of his conversation with
Stewart.16 The released recordings did not include all Giles’ statements regarding the abusive
pimp, her tragic life, and fear for the underage girls, or Stewart’s statements that ACORN could
not help.
Click to expand...

So the video has her saying ACORN can help, the unedited video has her saying ACORN can't help, and that... wouldn't .... change the public's perceptions? OK.
 
Mustachio said:
You say what? You read the whole thing and it wouldn't have changed the public's perceptions? So you missed parts like this?



So the video has her saying ACORN can help, the unedited video has her saying ACORN can't help, and that... wouldn't .... change the public's perceptions? OK.
Click to expand...

LOL... You are desperate to find anything that supports your ideological beliefs.

Let's take a look from the report itself...

O’Keefe stated that they would be running an “international sex business” and he planned to use the money from the business to finance a future political campaign. When asked her thoughts on that situation, Stewart told O’Keefe the couple needed to hook up with someone “on the international sex business level” and that “ACORN doesn’t deal with that.”
Click to expand...

Editing out Stewart saying “ACORN doesn’t deal with that” doesn't change anything, because that was already implied. O'Keefe asked Stewart her thoughts on their plan to run an “international sex business” and instead of Stewart offering her opinion or advice, she told him he needed ask someone who deals with the international sex business. Not offering an opinion or any advice, and instead telling him to ask someone who deals with such issues, makes it perfectly clear that neither she, nor ACORN, deal with issues concerning the international sex business.

So whether you include that statement or not, it doesn't change the meaning of her words and the same conclusion is reached... that ACORN doesn't advise people on running an international sex business.

A little common sense and reading comprehension can really go a long way... You just need to start seeking the truth, rather than playing political "gotcha" all the time.

.
 
Grim17 said:
LOL... You are desperate to find anything that supports your ideological beliefs.

Let's take a look from the report itself...

Editing out Stewart saying “ACORN doesn’t deal with that” doesn't change anything, because that was already implied. O'Keefe asked Stewart her thoughts on their plan to run an “international sex business” and instead of Stewart offering her opinion or advice, she told him he needed ask someone who deals with the international sex business. Not offering an opinion or any advice, and instead telling him to ask someone who deals with such issues, makes it perfectly clear that neither she, nor ACORN, deal with issues concerning the international sex business.

So whether you include that statement or not, it doesn't change the meaning of her words and the same conclusion is reached... that ACORN doesn't advise people on running an international sex business.

A little common sense and reading comprehension can really go a long way... You just need to start seeking the truth, rather than playing political "gotcha" all the time.

.
Click to expand...

By standing with O Keefe you have outright stated that you stand by dishonesty.

And as long as they make your political enemies look bad, you do not believe the people propogating that dishonesty should have an ethical bone in their body.

And it is incredible for somebody who just a few years ago, all they could talk about was dishonesty and how much they hated lying, could make it so unbelievably clear how hypocritical they are on that point by endorsing someone so morally repugnant as O Keefe.

To go down memory lane because this quote of yours always stuck out to me:

Grim17 said:
Lying sir, is something I wont do.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes you absolutely will and do if it means you can attack your political opponents and you will stand by anyone that does the same, you have made that extremely clear in this and many other threads.
 
Grim17 said:
What I highlighted is the problem... You are talking about the organization as a whole, while I am talking about the individuals who were videotaped and presented on those videos.
Click to expand...

Two problems with that, Grim: (1) O'Keefe didn't claim that there were a just few unscrupulous employees among thousands at a national organization (i.e. ACORN). His claim was that the entire ACORN organization was corrupt from top to bottom and that ACORN was in the business using tax payer money to promote of sex trafficing and child sex slavery. (2) And you STILL do not know what the unedited videos showed about those workers (which, again, is something that you have repeatedly lied about in this thread).

What I said is the truth. None of those employees, including Mr. Vera, was the victim of clever editing. Everything they said and did on those videos, was presented in context and did not misrepresent what took place at those meetings.
Click to expand...

That's not the truth. It's "your truth", perhaps..........but as we've seen in this thread, "your truth" has very little in common with THE truth. You can't seem to tell the difference between your feelings and opinions.........and objective facts.

It's the job of people like the California AG, ACORN investigators and anyone else who believes that those video tapes misrepresented the words and actions of those ACORN employees, to substantiate that claim.
Click to expand...

Of course...."Guilty until proven innocent". Why am I not surprised by this? Well....This isn't Russia or Saudi Arabia, Grim. In AMERICA, it's NEVER the job of the accused to prove his/her innocence. It's the job of the accuser (in this case, the petty criminal O'Keefe) to prove the accusations he made about ACORN and those few employees he illegally video taped. Obviously, if O'Keefe was telling the truth, those employees would have been guilty of felony behavior, and would have been prosecuted. Instead, the AG (who actually HAS seen the unedited videos).....saw that the only illegal behavior was that of O'Keefe and his girlfriend/fake prostitute on those occasions. That's the bottom line.

The complete unedited audio and the full transcripts were released to the public over 7 years ago and not one person has ever produced an example to substantiate those accusations... not even the California AG who examined the full, unedited videotapes as part of their investigation.
Click to expand...

Stop lying, please. There has NEVER been a release of the unedited videos. Maybe you are only guilty of being gullible enough to believe O'Keefe when he claimed to have released unedited videos on several occasions...........only to be made a liar in court. Or maybe you really just don't care about the truth and are willing to make up anything in order to defend your point of view. Who know?

The reason no example has ever been produced, is because those employees were not misrepresented in those videos. So you can piss and moan, and claim otherwise until the cows come home, but that won't change a damned thing, nor will it make you look less foolish.
Click to expand...

Again, you have a twisted "guilty until proven innocent" perspective of the law, Grim. They don't have to prove anything. They won the case against O'Keefe. He paid up, and apologized. And every government oversight and private accounting entity that investigated ACORN concluded no fraud or crimes at all. None. But your devotion to someone as universally discredited as O'Keefe is something that is typical of a lot of conservative ideologues, these days.

.
 
Grim17 said:
LOL... You are desperate to find anything that supports your ideological beliefs.

Let's take a look from the report itself...



Editing out Stewart saying “ACORN doesn’t deal with that” doesn't change anything, because that was already implied. O'Keefe asked Stewart her thoughts on their plan to run an “international sex business” and instead of Stewart offering her opinion or advice, she told him he needed ask someone who deals with the international sex business. Not offering an opinion or any advice, and instead telling him to ask someone who deals with such issues, makes it perfectly clear that neither she, nor ACORN, deal with issues concerning the international sex business.

So whether you include that statement or not, it doesn't change the meaning of her words and the same conclusion is reached... that ACORN doesn't advise people on running an international sex business.

A little common sense and reading comprehension can really go a long way... You just need to start seeking the truth, rather than playing political "gotcha" all the time.

.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes, I stand corrected. And then the parts they edited out where it was revealed that the ACORN employee was trying to protect women whose ages weren't mentioned while in the video she was portrayed as knowingly shielding underage prostitutes?

It's not a "gotcha," it's a "I'm amused that nothing makes you realize this was a con job for political purposes and is filled with misleading lie after lie."
 
Mustachio said:
Ah, yes, I stand corrected. And then the parts they edited out where it was revealed that the ACORN employee was trying to protect women whose ages weren't mentioned while in the video she was portrayed as knowingly shielding underage prostitutes?

It's not a "gotcha," it's a "I'm amused that nothing makes you realize this was a con job for political purposes and is filled with misleading lie after lie."
Click to expand...

It's absolutely amazing to me that the O'Keefe Fluffing Brigade leaves that part out. They are either monumentally stupid or perfectly fine in going along with a lie if it furthers their cause. Either way, they're either idiots or scumbags.
 
ultmd said:
That's not the truth. It's "your truth", perhaps..........but as we've seen in this thread, "your truth" has very little in common with THE truth. You can't seem to tell the difference between your feelings and opinions.........and objective facts.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for you or anyone else to post 1 example that substantiates your accusation that an ACORN worker had their words or actions misrepresented on one of those tapes.

Come on... Just one example of "clever editing" where it resulted in a false interpretation of what they said.



Of course...."Guilty until proven innocent". Why am I not surprised by this? Well....This isn't Russia or Saudi Arabia, Grim. In AMERICA, it's NEVER the job of the accused to prove his/her innocence. It's the job of the accuser (in this case, the petty criminal O'Keefe) to prove the accusations he made about ACORN and those few employees he illegally video taped.
Click to expand...

You've got it wrong my friend... Those ACORN workers are not on trial, they were secretly videotaped. It is James O'Keefe who is on trial by you and your leftist pals, who are still accusing him of misrepresenting those ACORN people and using editing as a means to change the meaning of the statements and actions of those employees in their meetings.

You say he misrepresented them, yet not you or anyone else on the entire planet has put forth one example that support that accusation.


Obviously, if O'Keefe was telling the truth, those employees would have been guilty of felony behavior, and would have been prosecuted. Instead, the AG (who actually HAS seen the unedited videos).....saw that the only illegal behavior was that of O'Keefe and his girlfriend/fake prostitute on those occasions. That's the bottom line.
Click to expand...

He was guilty on videotaping them without permission, that's it... What neither that AG, the firm hired by ACORN to investigate those videos, or anyone else has ever done is present anything that shows that those videos falsely represented the words and actions of any of those employees, yet people like you still claim that they have.

Come on... One example will do?


Again, you have a twisted "guilty until proven innocent" perspective of the law, Grim.
Click to expand...

No, it's you who is doing that.


They don't have to prove anything. They won the case against O'Keefe. He paid up, and apologized.
Click to expand...

Vera won the case against him for invasion of privacy, for illegally videotaping him without his consent. There was no case against O'Keefe for fraud or slander, or even an accusation of such. He settled out of court and agreed to pay Vera $100,000 and apologized for any pain he may have caused him. There was no demand that O'Keefe pull the video, or amend it in any way.

And every government oversight and private accounting entity that investigated ACORN concluded no fraud or crimes at all. None.
Click to expand...

Nice strawman. That has nothing to do with anything I've said on this thread.


But your devotion to someone as universally discredited as O'Keefe is something that is typical of a lot of conservative ideologues, these days.
Click to expand...

I'm not here to defend O'Keefe, nor have I.

I'm here defending the truth against those like yourself who claim that those ACORN workers were misrepresented on those videotapes, that what they said was taken out of context, had been fabricated, manipulated, or edited in such a way, that it gave the public a false impression of what they said, recommended and advocated for in those meetings.

It's been nearly 8 years and I have yet to see an example that supports the partisan, hate-based accusations made by people like yourself.

.
 
Mustachio said:
Ah, yes, I stand corrected.
Click to expand...

Thank you.





And then the parts they edited out where it was revealed that the ACORN employee was trying to protect women whose ages weren't mentioned while in the video she was portrayed as knowingly shielding underage prostitutes?

It's not a "gotcha," it's a "I'm amused that nothing makes you realize this was a con job for political purposes and is filled with misleading lie after lie."
Click to expand...

You'll have to be more specific... I don't know what videotape you're talking about.

.
 
Mustachio said:
Ah, yes, I stand corrected.
Click to expand...

Thank you.





And then the parts they edited out where it was revealed that the ACORN employee was trying to protect women whose ages weren't mentioned while in the video she was portrayed as knowingly shielding underage prostitutes?

It's not a "gotcha," it's a "I'm amused that nothing makes you realize this was a con job for political purposes and is filled with misleading lie after lie."
Click to expand...

You'll have to be more specific... I don't know what videotape you're talking about.

.
 
Grim17 said:
Thank you.







You'll have to be more specific... I don't know what videotape you're talking about.

.
Click to expand...

It was in the report you linked to, which you proclaimed you had read top to bottom and which I quoted already. Again

On November 16, 2009, O’Keefe released an edited videotape of his conversation with Harris.15
On November 19, 2009, O’Keefe released an edited videotape of his conversation with
Stewart.16 The released recordings did not include all Giles’ statements regarding the abusive
pimp, her tragic life, and fear for the underage girls, or Stewart’s statements that ACORN could
not help.
Click to expand...

The numbers refer to the citations, as you know having read the entirety of the report. She was under the impression that women (not underage girls, women) were being forced into prostitution and their lives were in imminent danger because that's what O'Keefe and his lying posse said. It was edited to portray a pimp trying to get tax breaks for his underage prostitution ring. It's like you built a wooden puppet and are wishing one day it will become a real boy.
 
Mustachio said:
It was in the report you linked to, which you proclaimed you had read top to bottom and which I quoted already. Again



The numbers refer to the citations, as you know having read the entirety of the report. She was under the impression that women (not underage girls, women) were being forced into prostitution and their lives were in imminent danger because that's what O'Keefe and his lying posse said. It was edited to portray a pimp trying to get tax breaks for his underage prostitution ring. It's like you built a wooden puppet and are wishing one day it will become a real boy.
Click to expand...

I'm still not seeing where Stewart was misrepresented on the video. What did they say about her, or present of her in that video, that led people to believe she said something, did something, or advocated for something that she didn't?

If this is a case where they tried to get her to help on outrageous thing #1, but she refused... Then tried to get her to help on outrageous thing #2, and she did offer help, but O'Keefe didn't included the conversation about thing #1 in the released video, I don't see a problem with that... as long as they didn't say or imply she had in fact agreed to help them on thing #1, because that would be misrepresenting the woman.

When people witness something negative that a person they side with has done, in an effort to defend that person, they try to "balance the books", by telling something good they did. I think there are a lot of people who want to defend the ACORN people in this way and in turn think that if O'Keefe had included, rather than editing out, something that a worker had done correctly, this somehow would have made what they had done wrong OK, or cancelled it out. It doesn't work that way. If a security guard at a jewelry store has foiled dozens of attempts to rob the store and has been named the states top security guard 4 years running, admits on a hidden camera that he stole a $10,000 diamond bracelet, him being security guard of the year the last 4 years is irrelevant. What a person has done correctly, doesn't change the thing they have done incorrectly.

.
 
Grim17 said:
...
Come on... Just one example of "clever editing" where it resulted in a false interpretation of what they said.
...
Click to expand...

Did you ever find the un-edited video? What is the deal, Breitbart had them & too them down because of lawsuits?

One thing I would look for are indications the person knows O'Keefe is crazy, or pulling their leg.
That in itself might not be considered contextual, but it would go a long way to explain.
 
Grim17 said:
I'm still not seeing where Stewart was misrepresented on the video. What did they say about her, or present of her in that video, that led people to believe she said something, did something, or advocated for something that she didn't?

If this is a case where they tried to get her to help on outrageous thing #1, but she refused... Then tried to get her to help on outrageous thing #2, and she did offer help, but O'Keefe didn't included the conversation about thing #1 in the released video, I don't see a problem with that... as long as they didn't say or imply she had in fact agreed to help them on thing #1, because that would be misrepresenting the woman.

When people witness something negative that a person they side with has done, in an effort to defend that person, they try to "balance the books", by telling something good they did. I think there are a lot of people who want to defend the ACORN people in this way and in turn think that if O'Keefe had included, rather than editing out, something that a worker had done correctly, this somehow would have made what they had done wrong OK, or cancelled it out. It doesn't work that way. If a security guard at a jewelry store has foiled dozens of attempts to rob the store and has been named the states top security guard 4 years running, admits on a hidden camera that he stole a $10,000 diamond bracelet, him being security guard of the year the last 4 years is irrelevant. What a person has done correctly, doesn't change the thing they have done incorrectly.

.
Click to expand...

This is absurd. You're asking questions that I've answered, like a conversation in reverse.

Let's go to the employee Kaelke, who was fired (which I have no problem with). She said she was a prostitute and killed her husband to set up her own prostitution ring and that O'Keefe looked like Princess Diana. So when it's edited to make it look like she's trying to help them set up a prostitution ring, it's totally valid? Oh, because she said it. So if I said to you, "if you could hook up with any girl in the world who would it be?" And you said "Tyra Banks, man!" So I could use that to prove you are aggressively trying to commit adultery and sleep with Tyra Banks? You should be ashamed of yourself. A divorce is definitely warranted.
 
Mustachio said:
This is absurd. You're asking questions that I've answered, like a conversation in reverse.
Click to expand...

I want you to point out in the video, where Stewart was misrepresented, taken out of context, or where clever editing of the video led people to believe she suggested or advocated for something that she did not.

Point out a specific instance (the time) in the video where this occurred.

Let's go to the employee Kaelke, who was fired (which I have no problem with). She said she was a prostitute and killed her husband to set up her own prostitution ring and that O'Keefe looked like Princess Diana. So when it's edited to make it look like she's trying to help them set up a prostitution ring, it's totally valid? Oh, because she said it. So if I said to you, "if you could hook up with any girl in the world who would it be?" And you said "Tyra Banks, man!" So I could use that to prove you are aggressively trying to commit adultery and sleep with Tyra Banks? You should be ashamed of yourself. A divorce is definitely warranted.
Click to expand...

I'd be glad to discuss this woman with you, but you need to address the Los Angeles video first before I'm moving on to this one.

.
 
Grim17 said:
Mustachio said:
This is absurd. You're asking questions that I've answered, like a conversation in reverse.I want you to point out in the video, where Stewart was misrepresented, taken out of context, or where clever editing of the video led people to believe she suggested or advocated for something that she did not.
Click to expand...

Point out a specific instance (the time) in the video where this occurred.


Mustachio said:
Let's go to the employee Kaelke, who was fired (which I have no problem with). She said she was a prostitute and killed her husband to set up her own prostitution ring and that O'Keefe looked like Princess Diana. So when it's edited to make it look like she's trying to help them set up a prostitution ring, it's totally valid? Oh, because she said it. So if I said to you, "if you could hook up with any girl in the world who would it be?" And you said "Tyra Banks, man!" So I could use that to prove you are aggressively trying to commit adultery and sleep with Tyra Banks? You should be ashamed of yourself. A divorce is definitely warranted.
Click to expand...

I'd be glad to discuss this woman with you, but you need to address the Los Angeles video first before I'm moving on to this one.
Click to expand...

I expected you would give up once the truth set in and you realized that you can't post evidence of something that never happened in the first place.

Out of the many on this forum who also disputed my point and also couldn't find one example that supported their arguments, I was hoping that you might be the first to step up and acknowledge you were wrong, and admit that nobody on those ACORN videos was misrepresented or taken out of context by O'Keefe... but oh well... I hope one day I find someone on the left who has that kind of integrity.

.
 
Grim17 said:
..... the first to step up and acknowledge you were wrong, and admit that nobody on those ACORN videos was misrepresented or taken out of context by O'Keefe...
....
Click to expand...

I can't find specific proof without seeing the entire video, I'll admit that much.
 
CletusWilbury said:
I can't find specific proof without seeing the entire video, I'll admit that much.
Click to expand...

The only things I have found are some of the full audio and some of the transcripts. The video's I saw 7 years ago were on a blog, and I haven't been able to find them again. They were the audio superimposed on the released video.

If you are examining the videos from the California stings, the Attorney General's report covers those.

.
 
Grim17 said:
I expected you would give up once the truth set in and you realized that you can't post evidence of something that never happened in the first place.

Out of the many on this forum who also disputed my point and also couldn't find one example that supported their arguments, I was hoping that you might be the first to step up and acknowledge you were wrong, and admit that nobody on those ACORN videos was misrepresented or taken out of context by O'Keefe... but oh well... I hope one day I find someone on the left who has that kind of integrity.

.
Click to expand...

You asked how a woman was misrepresented when she thought people's lives were in danger - the the video edits all of that out. I told you that, asked you about the person who knew it was a joke (really, a political con job but we won't get bogged down by semantics) and it was edited to make it look like she was 100% willing to help. But you won't address that because... you don't agree that omitting the most important detail of a conversation, the one where O'Keefe's crew implies that adult women are facing imminent death - counts as misleading people.

Yep. Nice job you did there. My favorite was the part where you didn't know Vera had called the police immediately and said your theory is he was a human child prostitute smuggler or was connected to some. Shows how far you'll stretch your logic out of an irrational love for O'Keefe's con jobs. Enjoy the bromance.
 
Mustachio said:
You asked how a woman was misrepresented when she thought people's lives were in danger - the the video edits all of that out. I told you that, asked you about the person who knew it was a joke (really, a political con job but we won't get bogged down by semantics) and it was edited to make it look like she was 100% willing to help. But you won't address that because... you don't agree that omitting the most important detail of a conversation, the one where O'Keefe's crew implies that adult women are facing imminent death - counts as misleading people.

Yep. Nice job you did there. My favorite was the part where you didn't know Vera had called the police immediately and said your theory is he was a human child prostitute smuggler or was connected to some. Shows how far you'll stretch your logic out of an irrational love for O'Keefe's con jobs. Enjoy the bromance.
Click to expand...

You claim that her words and actions were misrepresented.... Yet you can't point out one thing that she said on that video, that was misinterpreted, or taken out of context.

Until you can do that, you are just blowing smoke.

And btw, here's an excerpt from the AG's report that blows your excuse out of the water:

"Although their story morphed over time, the couple
requested advice from ACORN employees related to Giles’ prostitution business, including
obtaining a mortgage, reporting income and taxes from the illicit business, avoiding law
enforcement scrutiny, smuggling young girls into the country to serve as prostitutes, and
obtaining documentation and voting privileges for them. Woven into the narrative and
conversations were tales of Giles’ flight from an abusive pimp and how the girls could be kept
safe from the pimp, albeit employed as prostitutes. O’Keefe wore a hidden camera and secretly
recorded audio and video of the conversations."​

So the woman was acting out of concern for the girls lives, but the fact that they were still going to be used as prostitutes wasn't a concern.

Like I said, point out her words on the video that were distorted, or taken out of context.

.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom