• 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!

O'Keefe threatens to expose the "Deep State"

Speak of the devil and he appears... and with the same line of fabricated bull**** he been spewing for several years.

As you are well aware I have never defended James O'Keefe, just the ACORN videos, as I have just demonstrated. You can make believe otherwise, but it only confirms that you are as dishonest as the day is long.

You have shown everyone once again to be incapable of honest dialog and nothing more than a leftist hack, so by all means prove me correct by continuing to attack me with lies without disproving anything I've said about the ACORN videos.... It's what you've done for years, so I expect nothing less from you.

Carry on devoted leftist... carry on.

.

So you agree O'Keefe is a lying, deceiving, and manipulating douchbag? Yes or no.
 
Yes, I understand your hypocrisy, claiming that a president who didn't win the popular vote...
He won the election. Did you know that no one campaigns to win the popular vote, because it doesn't help at all when the other person wins the electoral college vote? So, I hope the Democrats keep trying to win that popular vote. I think Hillary won some vote on Twitter and Facebook too!
has a mandate to distort the government into an unrecognizable form --
Exactly what the opposition to Trump is doing. Glad you see that.
I would also contend that you have a childlike understanding of the terms that you use above, "big government, "anti-freedom," "anti-Constitutional." Namely, they mean whatever you imagine them to mean.
I didn't mean to harm you emotionally, maybe I was a bit too blunt.
To be "anti-Constitutional," I would need to be proposing something that is contrary to the constitution. The Constitution establishes Congress as the paramount power --
No it doesn't. They are a separate, coequal branch of government.
As an example, the Department of State, in 1789, was created to deal with international and diplomatic challenges. It was the intent of Congress that diplomats and professionals would be staffs to carry out the interests of the United States. For this president to intentionally keep positions unfilled, is the anti-Constitutional behavior your pin on me.
Uhhh... how is it anti Constitutional???
Likewise with other agencies that under attack. It was Congress' intent that the water and air be kept clean and created the EPA to execute the laws they passed. They did not intend for a President to subvert the will of Congress and put in place administrators who represents the industries they are monitoring, so as to make the air and water dirtier.
I don't think they intended for Obama to use the EPA to push his climate agenda, but I bet your were A-okay with that abuse of power.
So when you accuse me of all those nasty things above, your focus is misguided.
If it walks like a duck...
 
So you agree O'Keefe is a lying, deceiving, and manipulating douchbag? Yes or no.

Sorry, but as long as you continue to misrepresent the truth about the ACORN videos, especially the one that involved that $100k settlement, I won't be answering any of your questions.

If you want answers from me, you must first engage in honest dialog.

.
 
Sorry, but as long as you continue to misrepresent the truth about the ACORN videos, especially the one that involved that $100k settlement, I won't be answering any of your questions.

If you want answers from me, you must first engage in honest dialog.

.

There was nothing truthful with what was done to ACORN. He deceptively edited his raw video to make things appear different then what really happened. It's what he does.
 
There was nothing truthful with what was done to ACORN. He deceptively edited his raw video to make things appear different then what really happened. It's what he does.

Grim will insist to his dying day that O'Keefe didn't misrepresent anything, even though the Brooklyn DA cleared the ACORN employees of any wrongdoing; the videos stated that ACORN stood to receive $8.5 billion in federal funding that it in no way stood to receive; O'Keefe didn't wear the same clothing in the videos that he actually wore to the ACORN offices; that the U.S. GAO determined ACORN didn't mishandle any federal funds; or that O'Keefe had to pay $100,000 to someone that he smeared. Grim lives in a fantasy world.
 
poor OC. babbling incoherently at my post only proves something to you.



oh OC, you continue to whine at me and my points Sadly, whining and deflecting is all you can do and you know it. Again, I've backed up my points. You've only repeated yours.

Please address the topic...if you can. Hint: I am not the topic.
 
There was nothing truthful with what was done to ACORN. He deceptively edited his raw video to make things appear different then what really happened. It's what he does.

As I've asked you more times than I can count, can you show me any example of an ACORN video that through editing or manipulation, resulted in a worker being misquoted, being taken out of context, or in any way was misrepresented to the public about what they said and advocated for on those videos?

It would be nice if for once, you provided an example that substantiated your accusations.... Surely if what you're saying is true, there is one example out there somewhere that backs up what you claim. If you can't substantiate your accusations, then would you please tell me what you base those accusations on?

.
 
Grim will insist to his dying day that O'Keefe didn't misrepresent anything, even though the Brooklyn DA cleared the ACORN employees of any wrongdoing; the videos stated that ACORN stood to receive $8.5 billion in federal funding that it in no way stood to receive; O'Keefe didn't wear the same clothing in the videos that he actually wore to the ACORN offices; that the U.S. GAO determined ACORN didn't mishandle any federal funds; or that O'Keefe had to pay $100,000 to someone that he smeared. Grim lives in a fantasy world.

Then maybe you can do something that I have yet to see anyone do Kobie... Back up your BS.

Can you show me any example of an ACORN video that through editing or manipulation, resulted in a worker being misquoted, being taken out of context, or in any way was misrepresented to the public about what they said and advocated for on those videos?

BTW, the $100k settlement wasn't because O'Keefe had manipulated or edited the video of Mr. Vera, or misrepresented what he said... it was because secretly taping him was against the law in California.

.
 
So...time to derail the thread, eh?
Anthony opened the door with his view that winning elections makes it all right. I was merely addressing that point.

This thread has long been discredited on several main points:

  • O'Keefe is a dishonest partisan who routinely doctors videos to make is partisan narrative.
  • The OP's source is hardly a reliable news source.
  • The existence of this "Deep State" is fantasy.
 
Anthony opened the door with his view that winning elections makes it all right. I was merely addressing that point.

This thread has long been discredited on several main points:

  • O'Keefe is a dishonest partisan who routinely doctors videos to make is partisan narrative.
  • The OP's source is hardly a reliable news source.
  • The existence of this "Deep State" is fantasy.

Okay. Since, according to your opinion, this thread has been "discredited" that means it's okay to derail it. Thanks. I didn't know that. :roll:
 
Okay. Since, according to your opinion, this thread has been "discredited" that means it's okay to derail it. Thanks. I didn't know that. :roll:
You should consider switching to de-caff.
 
Please address the topic...if you can. Hint: I am not the topic.

Poor OC, the irony of that statement is amazing. anyhoo, I know you’ve run out of dodges when you whine about the thread topic. I’ll type this slow for you . This thread is based on yet another lying conservative narrative. I first pointed out that you were only whining at the links proving okeefe is a liar. "wah wah librul media" is simply not debate. I’ve also pointed out some previous lying conservative narratives that a large percentage if not majority of conservatives have believed. What wasn’t relevant was you whining about me. So again, "wah wah librul media" , "wah wah vern" and "nuh uh" are not debate.

So just to be clear, others have proven okeefe is a liar and I’ve proven you and yours want to be lied to. On quick side note, did you ever figure out what a “stereotype” was.
 
Poor OC, the irony of that statement is amazing. anyhoo, I know you’ve run out of dodges when you whine about the thread topic. I’ll type this slow for you . This thread is based on yet another lying conservative narrative. I first pointed out that you were only whining at the links proving okeefe is a liar. "wah wah librul media" is simply not debate. I’ve also pointed out some previous lying conservative narratives that a large percentage if not majority of conservatives have believed. What wasn’t relevant was you whining about me. So again, "wah wah librul media" , "wah wah vern" and "nuh uh" are not debate.

So just to be clear, others have proven okeefe is a liar and I’ve proven you and yours want to be lied to. On quick side note, did you ever figure out what a “stereotype” was.

Just to be clear, this isn't worth replying to. It does not address any comment I have made, it appears to have the sole purpose of annoying anyone that reads it.

If you could bring some substance to your comments, it would be a welcome change.

Newsweek and Media Matters are not good arbiters of truth due to their noted bias and records of bad reporting. Nor does O'Keefe, but that doesn't make anything and everything he reports automatically wrong, just suspect.
 
Just to be clear, this isn't worth replying to. It does not address any comment I have made, it appears to have the sole purpose of annoying anyone that reads it.
If you could bring some substance to your comments, it would be a welcome change.
Newsweek and Media Matters are not good arbiters of truth due to their noted bias and records of bad reporting. Nor does O'Keefe, but that doesn't make anything and everything he reports automatically wrong, just suspect.

Oh OC, my first post to you was to point out that you've in no way documented your claim about newsweek and MM while others have documented okeefe's dishonesty. I also pointed out other lying conservative narratives that a large percentage if not majority of conservatives have believed to show a pattern. I backed up that point. You however continue to post your baseless whines about newsweek and MM.

the good news is thanks to me you've finally attempted to pretend to question Okeefe's integrity but I didn't see where you asked the OP if he wanted to buy a bridge.

You are listening to Media Matters and Newsweek to tell you what is true and false? Wanna buy a bridge?
 
Oh OC, my first post to you was to point out that you've in no way documented your claim about newsweek and MM while others have documented okeefe's dishonesty. I also pointed out other lying conservative narratives that a large percentage if not majority of conservatives have believed to show a pattern. I backed up that point. You however continue to post your baseless whines about newsweek and MM.

the good news is thanks to me you've finally attempted to pretend to question Okeefe's integrity but I didn't see where you asked the OP if he wanted to buy a bridge.

Some of us actually read and know things without having to prove knowing them because the knowledge of such things is widely known and only partisan hackery by uninformed posters tends to "need" verification of every little thing. Widen your horizons, Vern, actually read something. Maybe this:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/newsweek/
LEFT BIAS
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources.

Factual Reporting: MIXED

Or this:

https://www.activistfacts.com/organizations/media-matters-for-america/
Media Matters for America (MMfA) is an IRS tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization that purports to document supposed conservative media bias. Media Matters Action Network (MMAN) is the affiliated 501(c)(4) organization that is the advocacy arm of MMfA.

Media Matters original goal was to serve as a “fact-checker” that focused on conservative media programming. But in practice, the organization primarily criticizes the opinions of Rush Limbaugh and the hosts and guests of Fox News Channel. MMfA was particularly focused Glenn
 
Some of us actually read and know things without having to prove knowing them because the knowledge of such things is widely known and only partisan hackery by uninformed posters tends to "need" verification of every little thing. Widen your horizons, Vern, actually read something. Maybe this:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/newsweek/

Or this:

https://www.activistfacts.com/organizations/media-matters-for-america/

Poor OC, you finally attempted to back up your point but failed. okeefe has been proven to be a liar. you're trying prove liberal bias and hope nobody notices you're trying to imply "liar". Unless "bias" is another word you don't understand like "stereotype". I guess your confusion is understandable because "conservative bias" definitely means "liar". Oh and the thing you don't get about MM is they back up their points. Like I do. and just like you "conservative media" assures you they're right and then hope nobody notices they don't back up their point or use false equivalencies.

And don't forget the narratives I posted that prove "conservative bias" means "liar".

President Obama was born in Kenya
his BC a forgery
He wants to kill old people
the vile and disgusting stand down lies
(put every conservative narrative about Obamacare here)
 
Poor OC, you finally attempted to back up your point but failed. okeefe has been proven to be a liar. you're trying prove liberal bias and hope nobody notices you're trying to imply "liar". Unless "bias" is another word you don't understand like "stereotype". I guess your confusion is understandable because "conservative bias" definitely means "liar". Oh and the thing you don't get about MM is they back up their points. Like I do. and just like you "conservative media" assures you they're right and then hope nobody notices they don't back up their point or use false equivalencies.

And don't forget the narratives I posted that prove "conservative bias" means "liar".

President Obama was born in Kenya
his BC a forgery
He wants to kill old people
the vile and disgusting stand down lies
(put every conservative narrative about Obamacare here)

Because Vern can't put together a coherent argument with both hands and a map he runs back to his failed stereotypes, that no one in this forum endorses or believes.

I accept your concession, because you must be conceding if you already ran back to a false argument.
 
Because Vern can't put together a coherent argument with both hands and a map he runs back to his failed stereotypes, that no one in this forum endorses or believes.

I accept your concession, because you must be conceding if you already ran back to a false argument.

My first post to you questioned why you don't have to believe Newsweek or MM.

I'm sure you've noticed that you and conservatives are just posting variations of the standard conservative "wah wah librul media" whine while others are documenting the lies from Okeefe.

You've posted nothing to substantiate your obedient conservative opinion to not believe them.
 
My first post to you questioned why you don't have to believe Newsweek or MM.



You've posted nothing to substantiate your obedient conservative opinion to not believe them.

And Vern goes back to his master/servant bull****----again.

I already gave you independent sources about their bias, and bias invites bending quotes, removing context to fit an agenda. It is evidence. It is not evidence you chose to accept because your partisanship is without question. BTW, engaging in an argument to the stone isn't convincing, you didn't even attempt to refute my argument, you just ignored it.
 
No. It was the deceptive editing and people dumb enough to believe it at face value that got him fired.

The lawsuit was filed on the assertion that O’Keefe broke a state law prohibiting the surreptitious recording of someone’s voice and image. But O’Keefe’s attorney, Michael Madigan from a Los Angeles firm, called the $100,000 payment a “nuisance settlement” and said that O’Keefe “has a full career ahead as a talented investigative journalist.”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/james-okeefe-to-pay-100k-to-ex-acorn-employee
 
Back
Top Bottom