James O'Keefe and the myth of the ACORN pimp
Last September, when the ACORN scandal that his website helped launch was breaking in the press, Andrew Breitbart wrote a column for The Washington Times detailing the rollout of the undercover, right-wing gotcha. He recalled a 2009 meeting with "filmmaker and provocateur James O'Keefe" that took place in Breitbart's office in June. It was there that O'Keefe played the columnist the surreptitiously recorded videos he'd made with his sidekick, Hannah Giles, and which captured the two famously getting advice from ACORN workers on how prostitutes could skirt tax laws.
In his Times column, Breitbart was quite clear about what he saw that day in his office: He watched videos of O'Keefe "dressed as a pimp" sitting inside ACORN offices "asking for -- and getting -- help" from the misguided employees.
But today we know that's almost certainly not true. Breitbart didn't huddle in his office and watch clips of O'Keefe "dressed as a pimp" chatting with ACORN employees, because based on all the available evidence, O'Keefe wasn't dressed as a pimp while taping inside the ACORN offices.
Make no mistake: Last fall, both Breitbart and O'Keefe, with the help of Fox News, did their best to confuse people about that fact. It's true the duo seemed to purposefully push that falsehood and mislead the public and the press about the ACORN story. And more importantly, they did it to make the ACORN workers captured on video look like complete jackasses for not being able to spot O'Keefe's pimp ruse a mile away.
But the story was not true.
Fact: On the guerilla clips posted online and aired on Fox News, O'Keefe was featured in lots of cutaway shots that were filmed outside and showed him parading around with Giles in his outlandish cane/top hat/sunglasses/fur coat pimp costume.
The cutaway shots certainly left the impression that that's how O'Keefe was dressed when he spoke to ACORN workers.

But inside each and every office, according to one independent review that looked at the public videos, O'Keefe entered sans the pimp get-up. In fact, he was dressed rather conservatively. During his visit to the Baltimore ACORN office, he wore a dress shirt and khaki pants. For the Philadelphia sting, he added a tie to the ensemble.
Instead, the '70s-era, blacksploitation pimp costume was a propaganda tool used to later deceive the public about the undercover operation. It was a prop that was quickly embraced by the mainstream media and turned into a central part of the ACORN story.
It's true that Giles was seen on the ACORN office tapes scantily clad as she discussed her future prostitution plans with ACORN workers. But it was the pimp costume, or the idea that O'Keefe was sitting there getting ACORN advice while decked out in it, that really hit the laughter button and caused the press -- and public -- to guffaw at ACORN's apparent cluelessness. Read: Not only were the ACORN employees morally suspect for doling out tax advice to a would-be prostitute, but the low-income advocates were dumb as stumps to boot!
"I can't believe ACORN believes this dude is a pimp!" exclaimed a Washington City Paper blogger last year, falsely reporting that O'Keefe arrived inside ACORN offices "looking like he had recently crawled from a frat house basement."
There's no doubt the pimp costume story worked. (Raise your hand if you were duped.) My guess is if you polled Americans today, and even ones who followed the story closely last year (including right-wing partisans), at least 90 percent would say O'Keefe sat inside ACORN offices while decked out in his pimp costume.
But it's not true. At least there have not been any publicly released ACORN videos to suggest otherwise.
And no, by pointing out the holes in the ACORN sting story, I'm not trying to excuse what was captured (illegally?) on tape. Everyone knows the embarrassing mistakes the poorly trained, low-level ACORN employees made when dealing with O'Keefe and Giles. That situation, and the continued fallout surrounding it, is for the organization to deal with.
Why the costume story is still important, though, is that it highlights the almost pathological streak that runs through Breitbart and O'Keefe's work, and how the press too often falls for their concocted cover stories. (See below; and yes, Media Matters has, at times, incorrectly stated O'Keefe wore his pimp outfit while meeting with ACORN workers.)
It's important to understand how Breitbart and O'Keefe were able to so easily plant the ACORN falsehood. That's especially true in the wake of O'Keefe's recent arrest in New Orleans, where he was cuffed with entering a federal building under false pretense and tagged with intent to commit a felony. As blogger Marcy Wheeler noted, O'Keefe's cover story for that failed caper is riddled with holes, which should be a red flag for journalists as Breitbart concocts his contradictory spin.
Wrote blogger Brad Friedman last week, as he highlighted the pimp falsehood against the backdrop of the New Orleans arrest:
If O'Keefe, and Breitbart, who still employs him, were that willing to out-and-out lie about the ACORN scam, seen as a successful one, just how far would the two GOP operatives be willing to go to get off the hook for what appears to be a very serious federal felony?
More importantly, if news organizations are still making the dressed-like-a-pimp mistake, it's time that they stop. And yes, that means you, New York Times.
Friedman has been trying to get the newspaper of record to correct its inaccurate reporting on the pimp issue -- reporting that appeared as recently as last month, following O'Keefe's New Orleans arrest. When one of Friedman's readers contacted the newspaper urging the same request, the reader was informed, via email by a Times senior editor for standards, that because O'Keefe claimed he'd been dressed as a pimp inside ACORN offices, and because O'Keefe had appeared on Fox News and made that claim, the Times did not need to post a correction.
Wrote the Times standards editor: "We believe" O'Keefe. (Yikes!)
That's nuts. It's one thing to be suckered in by Breitbart and O'Keefe's pimp costume tale, it's another for the Times to now defend its erroneous reporting. And even worse is the Times' implication that it's O'Keefe who gets to decide which version of the pimp story is true, despite all the contrary evidence.
Last December, former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger, commissioned by ACORN to independently review the facts surrounding the scandal, released his findings. Highly critical of ACORN and its employees, Harshbarger nonetheless concluded the undercover sting did not catch any employees breaking the law.
Harshbarger also shed light on the controversial videos, noting that portions had been "substantially" edited, including some voice overdubbing. And because O'Keefe and Breitbart refuse to let any outside observers -- including journalists -- view the full collection of unedited tapes, it's impossible to tell just how significantly the tapes were manipulated prior to their release.
This was another key, albeit mostly overlooked, finding from the report:
Although Mr. O'Keefe appeared in all videos dressed as a pimp, in fact, when he appeared at each and every office, he was dressed like a college student -- in slacks and a button down shirt.
It's worth nothing that if O'Keefe and Breitbart wanted to rebut Harshbarger's damaging claim about the lack of pimp costume -- a narrative both men worked hard to prop up last year -- it's logical they would release clips to disprove Harshbarger's finding. They would release a video that showed O'Keefe clearly dressed outlandishly as a pimp while sitting inside ACORN offices. But two months after the release of Harshbarger's report, Breitbart and O'Keefe have not done that.
Also note that earlier this month, after Friedman once again highlighted Harshbarger's finding, Breitbart posted this tweet:

How did the story first come to life? Not surprisingly, Fox News played a key role in hyping the phony pimp tale. During the second week in September 2009 when the ACORN story was breaking, O'Keefe appeared on Fox & Friends dressed up in his eccentric pimp get-up. Co-host Steve Doocy introduced O'Keefe as being "dressed exactly in the same outfit that he wore to these ACORN offices up and down the Eastern Seaboard" [emphasis added].
O'Keefe made no effort to correct Doocy's falsehood. Indeed, the entire point of O'Keefe dressing up that morning was so that Doocy could spread the pimp costume falsehood, which is why O'Keefe told Fox News viewers during the show: "I'm one of the whitest guys ever. I just wear ridiculous stuff and put people in ridiculous situations." The clear implication was that he wore "ridiculous stuff" into the ACORN offices.
There's just no proof he ever did.
Initially, many news outlets referred to O'Keefe as having "posed" as a pimp inside ACORN offices. And while there were problems with that wording, it was certainly better than claiming the undercover cameraman was "dressed" as a pimp while talking to ACORN employees. Yet for some reason, many journalists couldn't resist the lure of the "dressed" storyline.
Here's how CNN.com first reported the story on September 10, 2009:
Two employees at the Baltimore, Maryland, branch of the liberal community organizing group ACORN were caught on tape allegedly offering advice to a pair posing as a pimp and prostitute on setting up a prostitution ring and evading the IRS.
But note the erroneous change CNN made the following day:
T.J. HOLMES: Allegedly video out there taken by a conservative activist who dressed up like a pimp and had someone with him that was dressed up like a prostitute. They go into an office in Baltimore, one of these ACORN offices.
Soon, claiming O'Keefe was decked out in his comical pimp outfit while sitting inside the ACORN offices became the accepted norm.
They visited Acorn offices in Baltimore, Washington, Brooklyn and San Bernardino, Calif., candidly describing their illicit business and asking the advice of Acorn workers. Among other questions, they asked how to buy a house to use as a brothel employing under-age girls from El Salvador. Mr. O'Keefe, 25, a filmmaker and conservative activist, was dressed so outlandishly that he might have been playing in a risque high school play.
O'Keefe and Giles were garishly dressed as a stereotypical pimp and prostitute. O'Keefe was decked out in excessively snazzy flesh-peddler couture, and Giles, going by the name "Eden," wore almost nothing. The ACORN workers were not the slightest bit judgmental or put off by the request for help in getting financing for a brothel.
O'Keefe and Giles were dressed as a pimp and prostitute, just as they were during undercover visits to ACORN offices in Baltimore, Washington, Brooklyn and San Bernardino, Calif., over the summer.
NPR:
If you watch cable TV at all this week, you've almost certainly seen the images again and again -- a young man dressed as a pimp with a young woman posing as a prostitute. They are with ACORN workers who were supposed to be advising low-income people on taxes and home loans, but instead you hear this.
James O'Keefe, 25, dressed up as a cartoon version of a pimp. Hannah Giles, 20, barely dressed as a stereotypical hooker (or "freelance performing artist," as one Baltimore ACORN worker helpfully suggested). They stashed their camera and walked into ACORN offices from coast to coast, blatantly asking for help setting up housing for a prostitution business, which also would employ underage prostitutes from El Salvador.
The video sounds like a satire: A young man and woman, dressed as caricatures of a pimp and prostitute, walk into the Baltimore office of ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, and spin an outrageous story about how the woman needs help buying a house to set up as a brothel for underage Salvadoran girls.
Breitbart and O'Keefe have made it clear that they think they've stumbled onto the future of "conservative journalism" in the form of undercover pranks, so look for more Punk'd-style capers to come. But based on the trumped-up pimp story, and the fact that they chose to mislead the public about something as trivial as clothing, it should be clear journalists cannot accept as fact anything either man says.
Follow Eric Boehlert on Twitter.



















There, fixed it for you.
BTW Just how do you feel about the low moral character of someone who misrepresents himself and then lies to cover his a$$?
IOKIYAR?
i love watching liberal "fish" flop around on the bottom of the boat!!!....:)
If I visit 100 law firms, and 3 give me the means to break the law by avoiding taxes, does that mean that every law firm is corrupt? No, it means those three had individuals that were suspect.
Additionally, if he is completely unwilling to show the UNEDITED tapes to people, that tends to imply that there's something on them that would damage the narrative he's trying to push, don't you think?
Accepting anything you hear without questioning it, simply because it reinforces your own view of the world, is lunacy, no matter WHAT side of the political fence you're on.
egb's "summary" of Boehlert's piece -- that O'Keefe did not wear the outlandish costume into the ACORN offices -- is, of course, not a summary at all. The point Boehlert is making relates to how the media (no doubt driven by the Fox News narrative) got important details completely wrong.
1) Was it low moral character for one office to report the incident to Philadelphia police?
2) Was it low moral character for one of the workers in a California office to contact National Police and then be put in contact with a Federal Officer in human trafficing before discovering that it was all a hoax?
3) Was it low moral character for one employee to tell the pair that anything they do with ACORN, "must be legitimate,"?
4) Was it low moral character for another ACORN employee to offer Hannah assistance in finding a shelter or home to get her out of prostitution?
5) Do any of the videos actually show intent on the part of ACORN workers to continue pursuing these activities beyond the preliminary interview?
6) Do any of these videos show intent on the part of ACORN employees to commit any kind of crimes at all?
7)You don't find it the least bit curious that O'Keefe is requesting that the video he shot in the Senator's office be released to prove his own innocence while completely ignoring the fact that he has yet to release his own UNEDITED recordings of the ACORN employee's so they can properly defend themselves?
I look forward to your answers.
ACORN still remains guilty of not one single crime. Show us the evidence of law-breaking by ACORN or STFU, Fox Zombie.
This isn't about what the videos DID show. It's not about ACORN.
It's about how several people on the right were dishonest, and repeatedly so, over the issues raised here.
But that first poster couldn't defend Breitbart, O'Keefe and others from the accurate charges that they were dishonest, and so he did what he could to talk about something else, anything else.
I have evidence of law-breaking by somebody who saw ACORN!
There's no jealousy involved; we're just pointing out the sleaze that's oozing from your side.
Summarizing your message here, O'Keefe didn't wear his pimp outfit when he went into ACORN. Good summary.
O'Keefe didn't wear his pimp outfit when he claimed to, and this blatant lie is being aided by a steady stream of right-wingers in the media. Better summary.
What the videos do show is the low moral character of those involved with ACORN. On that, there is little dispute.
Wow. It really isn't strong enough to say that you've got things totally backward. You've not only swung and missed, your swing went around and conked you on the back of your head, and now you're sprawled on the ground, seeing stars.
Back to the minors with you.
How immoral!
Actually, Einstein, this entire article is "disputing" the point you made. Actually, the report filed by the fmr. Atty. General "disputes" the "low moral character" of the ACORN employees.
Tell me--when you watch "piano cat" on YouTube, do you believe that the cat actually knows how to play the piano? Or that he got himself all dressed up for his big performance? Is there anything easier in today's world than doctoring up video in order to make it SEEM like things are happening that really aren't?
It is ignorant and disrespectful to cherry-pick a couple isolated negative situations to accuse everyone at any place of being guilty of the same behavior, as it is equally stupid to review the larger sampling of positive situations to conclude that 100% of an organization is perfect. Show some respect for intelligence, if not for the huge majority of ACORN employees who did the right thing.
Wow egb, what a nice thing to say!!!
What? You object to my editing of your post?! I thought it was OK to leave out the stuff that doesn't fit my talking point?
Major league FAIL.
We're "jealous" of your to LIE, MISLEAD, DECIEVE, PROPGANDIZE, MISINFORM, FRAME, BEAR FALSE WITNESS, PURJER, MISREPRESENT, SMEAR, SLANDER and LIBEL?
And those are things your PROUD of?! OMFG.
I think you guys are jealous of the fact that we're right all the time, and everything you guys touch turns to $#!t, so you have to lash out with this nonsense like the spoiled little children you are.
--------------------------------------------------------------
You have no principles and you have no charecter. You people are indefensible.
Well, I guess the difference is that Moore actually sent somebody dressed ridiculously instead of just making crap up. So yeah, you guys can have that technique.
No one on the left is jealous of the law breaking antics of the republicans. But the author is wrong that they thought it up, it was Nixon who came up with these techniques first.
Mr. O'Keefe's costume does not include a "top hat." That's a fedora.
These are all rhetorical questions of course. You can simply call me a tea bagging racist and be done with it.
In short... no, I don't hold an entire organization responsible for the actions of a few low level employees.
If the video would be thrown out of court (which it would on day 1) then it has NO PLACE in the mainstream media... And it doesn't get any more mainstream than Fox.
Epic fail.
Not just rhetorical, but utterly moronic.
I think i'll call you MR NON SEQUITUR...
Your unwavering support of Beck and your attempts to spin his bizarre and insane rantings is indicative of a person of low intelligence. If you did a skilled job of spinning, then we'd have to admit that you were a rare intelligent minion of Beck. Instead, your attempts to defend him are feeble, indicating that you are one of his low-information target demographic.
I thought you were leaving this thread? I guess you are a liar.
"I thought you were leaving this thread? I guess you are a liar. "
Nope. Just leaving the part about ACORN. Sorry to disappoint.
The whole thing is about ACORN.
/sarcasm
And no, that's not an Ad Hominem attack. You victim-mentality wingnuts love to misinterpret that, but noticing that you failed is not a personal attack , it about your logic.
Both ACORN and the Pimp & Ho Show have been investigated. The Pimp & Ho Show is the one currently facing possible charges. The Pimp of the Pimp & Ho Show, already guilty of propaganda because of the misleading videos he created, then broke into the office of a sitting U.S. Senator in furtherance of committing a felony, and you defend this. So, in addition to being unintelligent, you are also amoral. At least you will be able to pass the Faux Con Purity Test.
One person should read the post, demolish his post, then everyone else should ignore it so the string doesn't go on and on, distracting from the actual topic.
Posters like MagCynic WANT the negative attention.
If you truly are Sue, I'm glad to see you've recovered from your stroke. Email me. She and I had a nice conversation going over email and IM back in the old days.
Insult me all you want on my intelligence but this is an argument you won't win.
Classic liberalism. It was founded on classic liberalism. Modern conservatism - the one espoused by guys like Beck - seek to conserve the Founding principles of this nation. If you agree with the Founding principles then - congratulations - you are a conservative.
Progressivism is the antithesis of classic liberalism.
Meanwhile, you have conservatives attempting to regulate what you can and can't do in your bedroom and arguing against the 1st amendment's establishment clause that both protects government from religion and vice versa.
And clearly you have no clue what a conservative actually believes in. It seems as if you form your basis of what a conservative is purely from sites like MMFA's misuse of the word.
My evaluation of cons comes from reading their words, their arguments and their actions. Any movement that canonizes someone with the stupefying ignorance of Beck, is no movement for a thinking, sentient being.
Why can't I and everyone else just think what I think? Why do we need to fit neatly into a category?
The reason why the majority of the people in this country are independents is because they aren't ideologues--they don't lock themselves in boxes and define their thinking with an empty label. Most people are to the right/conservative when it comes to some issues, and to the left/progressive/liberal/whatever side on others.
The founding fathers were free thinkers. They did not lock themselves up with labels. I think we'd all do well to follow their example.
Find a quote them of him stating this belief. I'll reckon I watch him much more often than you do and I've never heard him espouse this belief.
--Glenn Beck
I posted the original quote from Jefferson the other day. He used to the term "separation of church and state" to further clarify the 1st amendment's establishment clause.
Knock yourself out.
He stated, very plainly and very clearly, that progressives have built a wall of separation of church and state and that it's NONSENSE. That we were not founded on it. That the founding fathers DID NOT WANT separation of church and state.
Beck is hosting an event in Orlando based on this. This event will revolve around a speaker named David Barton, who has written a book touting this belief called the "Myth of Separation". This author and this book have been widely discredited, because it appears that Mr. Barton just completely made up quotes from various founders supporting his claim that no one was able to find the original source for.
One of Barton's dubious claims is that Thomas Jefferson wanted the "separation" to be one-directional, i.e. to protect the church from the state, NOT to protect the state from the church. In order to believe this, of course, you have to completely disregard Jefferson's many documented and very critical views of organized religion as a whole, and Christianity in particular (such as: "I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who call themselves Christians.")
Case in Point: Beck thinks the separation is bogus and not what the founders intended, and nothing could be further from the truth.
I will say this, though. In my readings - outside of Jefferson of course - I haven't read a whole lot about the Founders wanting a wall of division between religion and government. It almost seems like they didn't concern themselves too much with it as long as government didn't force one religion on anybody.
If you really want to get educated, read what the founders said about the dangers of oligarchy, something the cons embrace with every inch of their bosom.
I talked to some libertarians that were trying to get me to join their party once. I agreed with their views on social issues, but knew that their beliefs in regard to economics were hopelessly naive and utopian. Now that I have some more experience and knowledge under my belt I see that they are dangerous as their beliefs are anti-democracy. They think that the majority shouldn't be able to collectively set policy, such as funding a social program etc. That's where we part ways. I believe in personal freedom, but one of them is not the right to get filthy rich without contributing back to society. Libertarianism is unworkable and that's why it's never been successfully been implemented in any long-term stable society.
True. The types (health, employment, education) are agnostic but they all still have fall under an enumerated power. What do you think the General Welfare means? Do you think it gives Congress carte blanche to spend on whatever they want? Or do you think the Founders set up the federal government with specific limits in place?
Where do you get your U.S. history education from? The Constitution isn't to protect the individual from the powerful unless the powerful IS the government. The Constitution is a restraining document put in place to prevent the federal government from encroaching upon the liberties of the people.
My, God! That's not how a Republic works. That's a Democracy you are referring too.
Seriously I'm sort of shocked. I actually did think you were smarter than this and wouldn't make it that easy on me. Don't take this the wrong way as you could be smarter than me at many things. The Constitution, though, you are not.
There might be some that hold your rather odd opinion of the Constitution, but they clearly are in the vast minority.
You are wrong, my friend. We are and always have been a republic. Although I'm not certain what the difference is between that and a representative democracy.
That's a whole different can of worms. Part of the reason so many unconstitutional programs are active is that they base their decisions on previous court decisions and NOT the Founders' word.
I thought you were the Constitutional expret! Here's a hint. There is no substantive difference. Some would say that a republic protects minority civil rights, even against the majority will. However, unless you consider getting insanely rich a civil right, it doesn't apply to this discussion.
That's the extreme right's interpretation of the Constitution. In other words, it's just your opinion and the opinion of other kooks like Glen Beck.
It's OK to not think the government should pay for someone's health care. It really is. What isn't right is to demonize the other side and lie about their motives in order to avoid simply saying, "I don't want to have to pay for it." That is exactly what has happened. Glen Beck has played a big part in the coarsening of this debate through his sloganeering and inflammatory rhetoric. This distortion of the facts may win the day yet. So, as an effective strategy it may have been a good choice for the anti-government ideologues. However, it should offend anyone who values reasoned debate based on facts, rather than sound bites.
Libertarian ideals, while some may be okay in theory (and I am not sure that I can even say that I truly believe that they are sound theories in make-believe land, but...) don't work at all in real life.
We have laws licensing people to drive cars and operate vehicles and operate safe vehicles safely, for example.
Are you aware that the 2004 Libertarian Presidential candidate didn't have a license on his car because he didn't believe that the state had a right to force him to license his car, since it wasn't involved in regular interstate commerce? Or that they think that individuals should be able to mint their own money, and somehow FORCE businesses to take it? Or that the free market will regulate that money exchange, so as to punish people who might trade in "money" that's not really worth anything? Or that we should drive on a system of privately-owned roads? And if someone didn't maintain their privately-owned road well enough, well then people would just choose the next guy's road to pay tolls on to drive on?
It's crazy talk. Absolute lunacy.
Also, why won't they release them to the public? They had no problem releasing the edited versions?
Isn't that the point of this post?
If you can't answer those questions, why are you on this thread?
I,personaaly understand your need to keep trying to prove your uselss point about yourself and conism but why here?
Do you have the videos? yes or no.
Had the founding fathers been conservative, as you insist, they would have supported King George III, and we'd still be a motley collection of colonies.
Just like FoxNews and Rush Limbaugh and Republican leaders in Congress don't exist to draw negative attention to themselves. Their raison d'etre is to oppose everything that Obama and Democrats do, and to use every trick in the book to derail everything they can that Dems try. And one of the ways they do that is through pushing of nonsense that makes us NOT talk about what we should be talking about.
For example, death panels. The things they called death panels were actually a great idea which Dems were pushing for. They couldn't let us let people know how great an idea it was, so they twisted it up and changed the meaning of hte whole initiative.
Another example - John Kerry's military record. Any fair examination of his record versus Bush's record would have derailed Bush's candidancy for re-election. So they couldn't let that happen.
If you don't recognize that con trolls aren't here to get the negative attention, but rather to satisfy their underlying goal of derailing and poisoning the national discourse we SHOULD be having on issues of great importance, you need to learn that today.
Their underlying goal is toxic to America, and you're feeding that goal by giving them negative attention!!!
what this has demonstrated is that while there are a lot of superficial differences between ideologies, it tends to blur the reality that you're right... lib/progs and cons do share basic principles of beliefs but they tend to be obscured when it comes down to specific issues...
take personal liberty... we all agree on that in principle... but not when it comes to, say, the concept of the nanny state or sexual freedom (you can guess which political hacks are for and against each)...
and finally, i am a big fan of the "separation of church and state" being bogus, totally bogus... the establishment clause of the first amendment clearly states CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW...
If you don't feel like NewBee's repsonses deserve a retort then you can simply hit the little grey triangle next to his post and make it go away.
The simple truth is that I and several other posters have made substantive responses to your posts without being insulting or condescending.
However, you have chosen the route of "victim" by responding only to those who you feel are antagonizing you.
It is hard to buy your victim defense when you willingly and repeatedly walk into someone elses fist.
"In short... no, I don't hold an entire organization responsible for the actions of a few low level employees. "
- If stories kept on popping up about low level BK employees bathing in kitchen sinks you would start to wander. That's why I asked how many would it take. Probably not one or two. One hundred? Would that get your attention?
"I don't understand your point. "
- So you'd be OK if a story broke in which they caught 100 low level, hourly BK employees bathing in kitchen sinks? You wouldn't think any less of the company as a whole simply because the act was done by low level employees?
"The only evidence you have is this obviously deceptively doctored video?"
- I don't have any evidence. It's not by case or video. Not sure why you bothered typing that out even.
"I think i'll call you MR NON SEQUITUR... "
- Like I said above. You'd be OK with 100 BK employees bathing in kitchen sinks. It wouldn't change your opinion of the BK company as a whole at all, right?
So this is your excuse for proceeding with your silly analogy in the absence of reliable evidence against ACORN?
Yet you still segue right into:
You'd be OK with 100 BK employees bathing in kitchen sinks.
That's not logic, it's logical fallacy. I'd accuse you of wasting our time, but your attempts at argument are actually entertaining.
~
You couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag. This is easy.
Me: You shouldn't ignore an organization simply because something wrong was done by a low level employee.
MMFA: PROVE ACORN DID ANYTHING WRONG!!!!!!!
Me: That's not really what concerns me. That's not the point I'm making.
MMFA: HA! YOU CAN'T DUMB CONSERVATIVE TEA BAGGER. I OWN YOU AT ARGUING JAJAJAJA!
I usually get a laugh out of this poster, but I'm actually starting to feel pity for MC. This is one of the most fail-y battles I've seen a wingnut wage in a while.
No, we want to investigate it. Let's investigate it. Oh, but no one can be allowed to actually see the actual evidence and look at the unedited video tapes. Why is that again? Oh, because your hero O'Keefe and his boss, Breitbart, will not let anyone analyze the actual videos. Clearly, this would tell any thinking, rational brain that they have no intention of participating in any actual investigation of evidence. They only want to convince simple minds to believe their chosen narrative. Isn't that obvious? Don't you feel silly forcing us to show you how obvious these facts are. Let us know when you're serious.
But of course, none of this actually addresses the point of this post. I condemn the boneheaded actions of those few low-level acorn employees.
But at the same time, all of this evidence piling up about how deceptive Breitbart and O'Keefe have been when it comes to this video, combined of course with the fact that the videos that were released have clearly been heavily edited, on top of the fact that Breitbart and O'Keefe vehemently refuse to release the unedited tapes, wrapped up with the fact that O'Keefe was just arrested in New Orleans for entering a federal building under false pretenses and Breitbart can't seem to get his story straight about it....none of this makes you question the character or credibility of either of them? Because you're basing your condemnation of the entire organization of ACORN off of the few, heavily edited tapes released by O'Keefe and Breitbart who have displayed some bizarre behavior, to say the least, and downright manipulative and intentionally deceptive beavior at worst.
I think you are trying to ask if I would go into my local Burger King if I had heard that employees were caught bathing in sinks in other locations. I will nswer as I have before. I do not hold a company accountable for the actions and behaviors of people at the lowest levels of the organization. I also do not hold the employees at my local restaurant responsible for the irresponsible actions of others either.
The very idea is absurd.
Hypocrite.
Have 100 Acorn offices been found guilty of any wrongdoing? In short, the answer is no.
But of course, none of this actually addresses the point of this post. I condemn the boneheaded actions of those few low-level acorn employees.
But at the same time, all of this evidence piling up about how deceptive Breitbart and O'Keefe have been when it comes to this video, combined of course with the fact that the videos that were released have clearly been heavily edited, on top of the fact that Breitbart and O'Keefe vehemently refuse to release the unedited tapes, wrapped up with the fact that O'Keefe was just arrested in New Orleans for entering a federal building under false pretenses and Breitbart can't seem to get his story straight about it....none of this makes you question the character or credibility of either of them? Because you're basing your condemnation of the entire organization of ACORN off of the few, heavily edited tapes released by O'Keefe and Breitbart who have displayed some bizarre behavior, to say the least, and downright manipulative and intentionally deceptive beavior at worst.
Those are the only ones he has answers to, Ruby. Mag does not have an answer for how Beck can be a conservative while wanting to do away with the separation of church and state. He has to go back and listen to Beck and re-remember how that is supposed to make sense in his head. Any reasonable person would NEVER think of Beck as conservative. He is anything but.
Mag does not know how to answer why ACORN has not been convicted of any wrongdoing. He has to go back and listen to Beck so he can remember how to answer that one. He does not know why he still believes the O'Keefe tapes are evidence of anything even though they have been proven to be unreliable, heavily edited, and misrepresented. Beck and Fox will not touch that one, so Mag does not know how he thinks about it until he is told how to think about it.
He's trying to derail the conversation, trying to get us to waste time debunking his nonsense, so that we don't actually talk about the important subjects.
He's poisoning the debate. That's why Obama objected to FoxNews being considered a legit news organization - because they're toxic to the national discouse!
And when posters like NewBee allow the Glenn Beck fan to lead him around by the nose, all the while whining that 'don't feed the troll messages don't work', NewBee is actually the best buddy of the Glenn Beck fan. Because that Glenn Beck fan wants to derail the conversation. He KNOWS that his argument is full of holes, but he just wants to keep leading him down tangent after tangent, garnering negative attention all the time, and not helping this site at all.
I never said that ignoring the trolls doesn't work. I said that telling people to ignore the trolls doesn't work because someone inevitably will respond to them. It's human nature.
before you begin, I will remind you, we only know of seven(?)tapes...
- One of those tapes is completely bogus after it was revealed that the ACORN employee had "play acted" along with the absurd story that Hannah and James were pushing.
- One of the locations he went into had called the police, so that office is really absolved of any wrong doing and to date nothing improper or illegal on the part of employees at that office have been presented by O'Keefe.
- One location, the recorded employee making suggestions about where to cross the border actually got in contact with a Federal agent who investigates human trafficing. This proves that the employee never intended to assist O'Keefe in anyway.
- And the last tape that I have seen released by O'Keefe the employee said that anything the two of them wish to do with ACORN must be legitimate, absolving that location of any wrong doing.
If there have been other tapes released since this last one, I have not seen them... but, to ask my question again. You keep asking about a pattern on the part of employees. What about the pattern I have now listed twice in this thread that shows behavior of ACORN employees that show them making the right decisions or doing the right thing?
Why do you choose to ignore those examples and focus on a "pattern" of behavior that you believe is more damning to the organization even though its examples are not as extensive as O'Keefe would have you believe?
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Jeez, of course it would. But in any case, it's not a valid analogy for what you are trying to get across about ACORN.
1) 100 BK employees? How many ACORN employees did O'Keefe talk to? A dozen at most? You invalidate your point by saying "That's why I asked how many would it take. Probably not one or two. One hundred? Would that get your attention?" There were 4 videos. show me 96 more then I will agree that ACORN should be denied their funding.
2) Nobody at ACORN did anything really wrong...especially in the legal sense. You do know that most of them went to the police after the incident, right?
3) "The only evidence you have is this obviously deceptively doctored video?'
- I don't have any evidence. It's not by case or video. Not sure why you bothered typing that out even."
They were talking about ACORN video. How hard is that to understand?
It originally started as an analogy when people were saying the actions of a few low level employees weren't indicative of ACORN overall. My point is that it should be. There were enough videos of them doing questionable things to at least merit a looksy. I believe ACORN might have done an internal investigation and fired some people so that's something good at least.
"They were talking about ACORN video. How hard is that to understand? "
- That's what I WAS referring to. Someone told me, "The only evidence YOU have" as if my life depended on whether or not ACORN went on trial for this.
They aren't. If it were, Fox News would have been driven out of business years ago for their support of the certifiable psycho by the name of Glen Beck.
You're just another Fox shill who is chasing his own tail.
Go away, Fox Zombie.
--You made the analogy of, "if 100 BK employees were caught bathing in the sink..." and then when that analogy was proven a false one, because there have not been 100 ACORN workers found guilty of any wrongdoing, you kind of flipped a little bit. Here's the point: If a BK employee was caught bathing in the sink, that employee should be fired. The handful of ACORN employees that were caught engaging in some questionable behavior (but nothing illegal, note) were fired by ACORN. If BK fires an employee for bathing in the sink, that should be a clear indication of the fact that BK as an overall corporation does not endorse this activity. The fact that ACORN fired the employees in question and conducted their own internal investigation of the matter seems to indicate, clearly, that ACORN does not condone these actions. Furthermore, congress voted to withhold funding from ACORN until they can make sure all is taken care of. I think ACORN has been sufficiently "looked at".
--Now, back to what I was saying earlier. Breitbart and O'Keefe are definitely relevant to any discussion of these ACORN tapes, because they are the creators/promoters of them. Now the facts are this: the ACORN tapes are clearly heavily edited, Breitbart and O'Keefe vehemently refuse to release the unedited versions, Breitbart and O'Keefe seemingly intentionally misled the public about some of the details of these tapes (i.e. the pimp costume), O'Keefe was recently arrested in La. for entering a federal building under false pretenses and Breitbart can't seem to get his story straight about it (can't even seem to figure out whether or not he actually pays O'Keefe's salary). I think we can safely say that the credibility of these two is, at the very least, questionable, if not all together non-existent. I don't think we should base any serious conclusions about the nature of ACORN as an organization off of anything produced by these two shady characters.
MagCynic, Attorney at Law
Excellent. If that is the case, then I suggest you leave off badgering ACORN, and turn your sights on the Republican Party itself. Child prostitution, adultery, bribery, homosexuality, fraud, pandering, almost every conceivable degrading thing humans do to each other has been done by an elected member of the Republican Party. Based on your own logic, that makes the entire organization guilty. Go git em!
This very flawed compairison/argument is straight out of ole Becktards mouth. Typical Glenn Beck argument, "The streets are wet, therefore it rained."
Someone that works for a fast food chain taking a bath in the sink is an anomaly. (So maybe it's an accurate depiction of ACORN :))
Anyway, how many, at this very moment, "low level" Burger King employees do you think overcharge customers and skim the register? Hmmmm??? Does this change your opinion of Burger King? Is it happening at all locations? Is it 50, 100 employees? Does this mean that the CEO is a crook? Is Burger King a corrupt company?
Not "rhetorical", may be "retarded" (Sorry Sarah) questions MagCynic.
What if O'Keefe, a journalist(?), was proven to have edited videos to present a narrative rather than to expose any facts? What if O'Keefe was proven to have misrepresented, even to his defenders, how he presented himself in a video? What if he did this in two videos? How about ten? Would you think differently of his reporting and your heros who still attempt to defend him? What if he was caught misrepresenting himself in a federal building, and into a Senator's office? What if he tried to excuse that by suggesting that the Senator's office is the "people's" and he should be allowed to misrepresent himself and sneak in under false pretenses? How many offices would he need to do this in before you began to doubt the falsehoods you are being spoonfed by Fox News and hate radio?
O'Keefe and Breitbart refuse to offer up ANY videos for inspection. They show you only a lame attempt at a Daily Show interview and you take it as evidence of something. Don't you hold your own judgements and opinions to a higher threshold than this? Are you so partisan that you never consider the source before running wild with such unproven nonsense? I mean these are all rhetorical of course.
In this season of Lent, maybe Fox and their nominally "Christian" TV personalities should reread the Gospels and consider whom Christ would stand with.
The GOP proclaimed O'keefe a hero after the Accorn stunt and just a kid doing a prank at the Senator's office...Like Glenn Beck they have different answers for the same type of thing
Does that mean O'Keefe believed his getup to be "black"? Seems to me he has a warped view of minorities...
----------------------------------
The Midnight Review
If ordered by law to produce the unedited tapes, I predict that they no longer exist. Liars always lie. And the Publisher and the 25 year old kid are liars.
Randy
Randy
I'm actually not sure what difference it makes though, really. The content of the conversation was more damning than any costume he may have worn. Seems a little bit nit-picky, Mr. Boehlert. You would not look so much like a shill if you stuck to the "highly edited videos" bit.