(03-06-2014 12:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  To clarify, I'm not defending what they did wrong. I've admitted this on numerous occasions, and will once again, that yes they did many things that were wrong and many of them lead to their demise. But Okeefe's lie and the R's congressional lust after them (they still include anti-ACORN language in spending bills to this day) was the final nail.

What was O'Keefe's lie?

(03-06-2014 12:02 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  You clowns watch waaaay to many movies. /facepalm

(03-06-2014 01:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 12:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  To clarify, I'm not defending what they did wrong. I've admitted this on numerous occasions, and will once again, that yes they did many things that were wrong and many of them lead to their demise. But Okeefe's lie and the R's congressional lust after them (they still include anti-ACORN language in spending bills to this day) was the final nail.

What was O'Keefe's lie?

Haven't I told you before that you're horrible at playing dumb?

(03-06-2014 02:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 01:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 12:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  To clarify, I'm not defending what they did wrong. I've admitted this on numerous occasions, and will once again, that yes they did many things that were wrong and many of them lead to their demise. But Okeefe's lie and the R's congressional lust after them (they still include anti-ACORN language in spending bills to this day) was the final nail.

What was O'Keefe's lie?

Haven't I told you before that you're horrible at playing dumb?

So in other words, you can't answer the man...

I must be losing it...I keep coming back to this thread expecting to see stuff about Lerner and her email.

(03-06-2014 02:30 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 02:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 01:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 12:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  To clarify, I'm not defending what they did wrong. I've admitted this on numerous occasions, and will once again, that yes they did many things that were wrong and many of them lead to their demise. But Okeefe's lie and the R's congressional lust after them (they still include anti-ACORN language in spending bills to this day) was the final nail.

What was O'Keefe's lie?

Haven't I told you before that you're horrible at playing dumb?

So in other words, you can't answer the man...

I already have...numerous times before. Mind your own business.

(03-06-2014 02:32 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  I must be losing it...I keep coming back to this thread expecting to see stuff about Lerner and her email.

Stick around. We're about ready to move on to global warming.

(03-06-2014 02:30 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 02:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 01:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 12:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  To clarify, I'm not defending what they did wrong. I've admitted this on numerous occasions, and will once again, that yes they did many things that were wrong and many of them lead to their demise. But Okeefe's lie and the R's congressional lust after them (they still include anti-ACORN language in spending bills to this day) was the final nail.

What was O'Keefe's lie?

Haven't I told you before that you're horrible at playing dumb?

So in other words, you can't answer the man...

The lefters and Commietommy's perception of O'Keefe's ACORN reporting is' "a travesty based on wildly unfair character attacks".

(03-06-2014 02:37 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 02:30 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 02:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 01:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 12:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  To clarify, I'm not defending what they did wrong. I've admitted this on numerous occasions, and will once again, that yes they did many things that were wrong and many of them lead to their demise. But Okeefe's lie and the R's congressional lust after them (they still include anti-ACORN language in spending bills to this day) was the final nail.

What was O'Keefe's lie?

Haven't I told you before that you're horrible at playing dumb?

So in other words, you can't answer the man...

The lefters and Commietommy's perception of O'Keefe's ACORN reporting is' "a travesty based on wildly unfair character attacks".

Hey, what's your Messiah Vlad been up to today by the way?

(03-06-2014 02:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 02:30 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 02:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 01:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 12:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  To clarify, I'm not defending what they did wrong. I've admitted this on numerous occasions, and will once again, that yes they did many things that were wrong and many of them lead to their demise. But Okeefe's lie and the R's congressional lust after them (they still include anti-ACORN language in spending bills to this day) was the final nail.

What was O'Keefe's lie?

Haven't I told you before that you're horrible at playing dumb?

So in other words, you can't answer the man...

I already have...numerous times before. Mind your own business.

Name one of them. Provide a link.

(03-05-2014 12:08 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  but rwtommy told us it wasn't real!

In Fairness, Torch... Tommy more distanced the white house from the actions rather than claiming it wasn't real.

Of course, this is exactly what happens in these sorts of things.

There is rarely a 'smoking gun'... but it is clear that Lerner was out for 'the tea party' for political reasons... and as she met frequently with party members, including the LEADER of her party it is hard to believe that they didn't know/weren't involved...

but you will be hard pressed to PROVE it to people who have a reason NOT to follow anything but solid lines.

(03-06-2014 02:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 02:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 02:30 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 02:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 01:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What was O'Keefe's lie?

Haven't I told you before that you're horrible at playing dumb?

So in other words, you can't answer the man...

I already have...numerous times before. Mind your own business.

Name one of them. Provide a link.

There's no point. You just sit there and come to the conclusion that just because the person on the tape said something, the deception that lead to those comments doesn't matter. The editing doesn't matter.

And for a supposed legal mind like yourself, it's nothing but a lie on your part.

Hell, even Breitbart himself admitted that he was duped by Jimma.

You'd never defend something like this if it went against a Republican.

Quote:Hell, even Breitbart himself admitted that he was duped by Jimma.

that one you're going to have to find... I'm a regular Breitbart reader, and there's NEVER been any sort of "dupe" response by Breitbart.

Media matters made the "dupe" comment but that was _NEVER_ What Andrew B. said. Andrew said that "O'Keefe used the Pimp costume only in the "title shots' and stuff", and that he wouldn't have done it. But he NEVER said he was duped by O'Keefe.

(03-06-2014 03:13 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

Quote:Hell, even Breitbart himself admitted that he was duped by Jimma.

that one you're going to have to find... I'm a regular Breitbart reader, and there's NEVER been any sort of "dupe" response by Breitbart.

Media matters made the "dupe" comment but that was _NEVER_ What Andrew B. said. Andrew said that "O'Keefe used the Pimp costume only in the "title shots' and stuff", and that he wouldn't have done it. But he NEVER said he was duped by O'Keefe.

It's around 5:20 in. But yeah...I can see how he's not really admitting being "duped" but he does admit that he was not aware that Jimma wasn't dressed as a pimp in the offices.
http://crooksandliars.com/mike-stark/los...zy-you-mis

(03-06-2014 03:53 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  he does admit that he was not aware that Jimma wasn't dressed as a pimp in the offices.

And that's relevant becuase?

Fruit from a poisonous tree dude. The whole thing was based on deception. Breitbart tried to warn Jimma that he would be held to a higher standard, but he didn't listen.

As I said, it would matter to you if it were against someone on your side. Sad that you can't admit that.

(03-06-2014 02:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  There's no point. You just sit there and come to the conclusion that just because the person on the tape said something, the deception that lead to those comments doesn't matter. The editing doesn't matter.
And for a supposed legal mind like yourself, it's nothing but a lie on your part.
Hell, even Breitbart himself admitted that he was duped by Jimma.
You'd never defend something like this if it went against a Republican.

If the person on the tape made the comment, then it's hard to put at least some of the comments into any context where they aren't culpable.

I'd defend something like this, no matter who it went against, if the alleged flaws with it didn't go to anything substantive. That's my point about all this, I've read the criticisms of what O'Keefe did, but I've seen any criticisms that go to the substance of what was said by the ACORN, et al, people.

What I've seen are comments more like, since he wasn't really a pimp, then it was dishonest and doesn't matter. If the subject THOUGHT he was a pimp, then whether he was or not doesn't matter.

If someone could show me something that substantiated that the people on tape didn't actually say the things the tapes show them saying, or that the person talking about how to get the hooker deal done actually thought she or he was talking about the weather when they made those comments, then I'd say there's room for substantive criticism. If you have links to that kind of criticsim, please post. I'd like to read them.

For the record I have, by the way, discussed these specific points with O'Keefe on a couple of occasions. His feeling is like mine, that all the criticisms don't go to the substance of the allegations. If you can provide something to suggest otherwise, I will read it with an open mind. But the actions of ACORN and others in response to O'Keefe's work suggest that the contra arguments do not change the substance.

(03-06-2014 04:12 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Fruit from a poisonous tree dude.

Doesn't apply. Simply doesn't.

Owl, you do know that all this has been investigated and that no ACORN employee was charged with anything illegal don't you?

(03-06-2014 04:51 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Owl, you do know that all this has been investigated and that no ACORN employee was charged with anything illegal don't you?

And that is relevant because? Hell, I wouldn't file charges if it were my call.

I don't see anything on the tapes that would constitute a violation of law, unless maybe you could get some kind of conspiracy charge, but then there's probably no conviction without the tapes and you probably don't have the proper custody trail to get them into evidence. There were employees fired over what they said on tape, and I haven't seen any wrongful termination suits, and ACORN has been disbanded. That suggests pretty strongly that the allegations were valid. I can't imagine a DA or US Attorney thinking that trying a case in those circumstances would be a prudent use of resources.