• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Project Veritas strikes again / More evidence...

Buckaroo said:
I just wrote a reaction to the video for a facebook post after a Trump supporter asked me to watch it. I only watched the video once- is my analysis more or less correct?
-------
I watched the video -- very interesting, and on first viewing certainly does look pretty bad. There's some behavior in it that I'm definitely not comfortable with, and it edges right up to the ethical line, but looking closely it doesn't seem to be quite as damning as O'Keefe would have us believe. First, there's the tactic of bird-dogging. There's no question that these guys were sending people to rallies in order to get a rise. But notice what wasn't said: unless I missed it, nowhere do these guys say that the bird-doggers are making the first physical contact, or throwing the first punch. They are simply making themselves prominently visible, or behaving obnoxiously, in order to bait the Trump supporters. So who is responsible when things get physical? The person who throws the first punch. Is that the Trump supporter or the protester? Through clever editing, the video tries to make the viewer come away with the impression that the protesters are the ones doing that, but watch carefully: that's never actually said. In fact you if listen closely to what these guys are saying, the whole point is to get the Trump supporter to get physical; if the protesters were to throw the first punch it would defeat the purpose. Organized protests with the purpose of making the other side look bad are nothing new, and that's basically what bird-dogging is. Even when the riot is discussed, no one actually says that the physical altercation was started by the protesters -- only that it got physical. So yeah, these are underhanded tactics, but on the other hand O'Keefe is clearly attempting to mislead the viewer through editing to make it seem much worse than it actually is.
Click to expand...

Isn't the broader point that the campaign is organizing these things, just like many people said and that hillary's campaign denied, that seems to be the point. No one is arguing that these people SHOULD be punched in anyway.
Then there's the way the organizations are structured: they're designed deliberately to skirt laws requiring separation between a campaign and superPACs. But the interviewees were very careful to point out the "double-blind" nature of the organizations with respect to the campaign. In other words, they're violating the spirit of the law, but probably not the letter -- they've found a workaround, and they're exploiting a loophole. It seems crummy on its face, but it's not obvious that any laws are actually being broken. Of, course, I'm not a lawyer.
Click to expand...

Again, he's trying to expose the dishonest way that things are being done, but this is the first video to come out, we'll see what comes next.
Here's the part I'm not comfortable with AT ALL: that is when the guy says that he recruited "mentally ill" homeless people. Taken at face value, this seems to me REALLY uncool. On the other hand, it sounds like he took good care of them afterwards, so what are we to make of that? I don't know. I still don't like it. And how much of what he was saying about the homeless was just off-the-cuff exaggeration? It's hard to tell. So I don't know what to think about that part -- I'd like to hear what the guy has to say for himself.
Click to expand...

Agreed
So overall, yeah, there's some dirty politics here, but nothing that I can see that's beyond the pale, despite O'Keefe's attempts to gin up a scandal. Politics is a dirty business, and both sides have operatives and consultants such as these -- always have, always will. But it doesn't suggest to me that the Democrats are any more or less dirty than the Republicans -- they just happened to have a camera in the room.
Click to expand...
Hillary's campaign has brought this to the current level, that is what he has exposed in this first one, I'm not sure anything is illegal, but what do you expect from a citizen reporter. I think you have to give him his due on this.

What will be interesting is how these people are paid.
 
Last edited:
logger said:
Evidence is what makes him credible.
Click to expand...
"Evidence" is certainly a much better rubric for credibility than this (your actual response to the question "what makes him credible"):
logger said:
Because he took down ACORN and I doubt the context you are suggesting, but I'm certainly open to seeing what you have on it. Does it compare to what all the big media outlets do?
Click to expand...

Of course, you haven't actually provided any evidence as to what makes him credible. Meaning that your "arguments" have all the weight of...nothing...from the perspective of anyone else.
----
logger said:
ALL news outlets put a slant on news.
Click to expand...
Slant, yes. Deliberately misquote individuals and organizations so as to create a false narrative, not so much. Take a listen to that interview provided in post #12; pay particular attention to Buffy the Vampire Slayer towards the end.

logger said:
Shadowdweller, is this post the skepticism you're referring to?
Click to expand...
That is a fine example of someone not taking you seriously after you start a thread with unsubstantiated statements in support of an individual who is widely acknowledged to have validated his political activism with outright fabrication...

...on a skeptics' board no less.
 
Last edited:
logger said:
All media outlets slant, and they all lie in many ways. All have been caught doing these things.

By the way, how exactly is he lying to me?
Click to expand...


He told you ACORN did something wrong that they did absolutely did not do.


Lol
Yes, okay at least you admit it. I'm matching your drama.
Click to expand...


No, you're just being intellectually dishonest.

You're willing to throw out evidence because you don't like the person offering it, and that is somehow skepticism.
Click to expand...

I did not say that.


Okay fine, how about commenting on what he has. Typical again as more evidence comes out how you were wrong about Trump and these agitators.
Click to expand...


What are you talking about? This video doesn't speak to any argument I recall making. I've been pretty clear about violence being wrong from Trump protestors, and being critical of Trump's calls for violence. Using logic, show how this video disproves that Trump has called for violence.


Because anyone can plainly see the corruption going on, I'm intellectually dishonest for wanting them outed? That is very bizarre thinking. Seems to me I'm being perfectly honest about it.

Would you like to comment on his discovery? ;)
Click to expand...


Ah, appeal to 'common sense'. No evidence needed, it's just 'plainly visible'. Yes, assuming they are there and believing that even if the evidence you have presented is a lie, you were still right is extremely intellectually dishonest. You're saying that regardless of the quality of evidence, you are right.

Maybe he found an asshat and recorded him. Maybe he goaded and selectively edited again, like the last time people called the cops on him after telling him whatever he wanted to hear to get him to leave. Because the source is a propaganda source, the truth of his claims are going to have to be investigated by credible sources. Why not skip the uncredible source and go right for the better sources before wasting time and energy trying to what 'apparently' is in a video from a known scam artist?
 
tyr_13 said:
Why not skip the uncredible source and go right for the better sources before wasting time and energy trying to what 'apparently' is in a video from a known scam artist?
Click to expand...

This from your post in the only thing worth responding to, yes I'm fine with waiting for other "credible" sources. I'm just glad he got the ball rolling so those other "credible" sources could actually do their job.
 
Shadowdweller said:
That is a fine example of someone not taking you seriously after you start a thread with unsubstantiated statements in support of an individual who is widely acknowledged to have validated his political activism with outright fabrication...
Click to expand...

So because of the way I started the thread, the evidence cannot be taken seriously?
By the way, its not about me! ;)

On a skeptics board no less.
 
Project Veritas?! Is that Hillary's attempt to discredit the Sokovia Accords?

This thread belongs on the conspiracy theory section.
 
There is already a thread about known fraudster and convicted criminal James O'Keefe's video.
 
No-one who comes on here with despicable claims about the actions of either candidate seems to have any awareness of the damage that is done to the very idea of democracy, or to the workings of government. In a disfunctional system such as the idiotic founding fathers put together for the USA, action only happens through co-operation. Polarising the populace and the body politic through nonsensical over-blown claims can only result in stasis. If you guys want permanent stasis, government in aspic, no change ever...........then carry on impuning the reputation of your opponents. I mean, how silly would it be to recognise that decent people can honestly disagree, and yet remain decent people? Ridiculous, huh?
 
Tony Stark said:
Facts are that James O'Keefe is a proven scam artist.
Click to expand...

Now, now a history of lying, deceptive editing of material fraud, criminal convictions, faking news stories and voter fraud is nothing compared to anything that might be useful to smear Clinton.
 
This'll surely be what turns it around for Trump. Trusting proven liars have worked so well in the past.
 
When a poster states that they find someone credible for using selective editing and lies to shut down an organisation that they opposed politically, there's not much help for them really.
 
The OP's hero is a liar and a charlatan. It makes sense the the OP would use a liar and charlatan as a source.
 
Tony Stark said:
James O'Keefe is a known scam artist.
Click to expand...

And I'm pretty sure he's a character from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.

He was also, along with Andrew Breitbart, one of the first indications that republicans in general were perfectly willing to ignore truth so long as press coverage favored them. He's a small part of how we got where we are now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom