tenpoundsofcheese: FarkedOver: Everyone knows that Unions are bad. I mean corporation and business leaders would never use violence to stop an employees right to organize.

Ohhh wait....

[www.niu.edu image 496x400]

got anything more recent than a black and white photo?

Funny you should mention that. Striking has gone down considerably over the years since that photograph, as has union membership. Mostly because the laws are written with a pro-business prospective rather than a pro-worker prospective.

There's a good quote. "When people ask me, 'Why can't labor organize the way it did in the thirties?' the answer is simple: everything we did then is now illegal."

The last big example of treading on workers rights is probably Reagan firing the air traffic controllers. There was no violence, just a simple fark you, business is more important mentality.

I don't expect you to agree with anything at all I posted considering you carry water for the rich and capitalists on a constant basis. That being said, I bid you good day.

Getting paid to dig up dirt and fill the hole back in is a metaphor for what O'Keefe does for a living.

the scary thing is how many morons believe this shiat. and every other lie they tell. Fox News did it this week and the farking Romney campaign is running with it. John McCain has more ethics in his pinky finger than Romney does in his entire body.

dudemanbro: James O'Keefe should be kicked in the nuts repeatedly until he's dead.

I'll pledge a grand for the first shot.

ongbok: What the hell is up with the time stamp in that video? It keeps jumping around, getting blurred, and disappearing. How could anybody take a video that the time stamp is so obviously hinky seriously?

Seems like a good idea on their part:

- O'Keefe can claim to have been upfront about the selective editing, in an attempt to avoid legal liability
- Lost of people will crop the timestamp out and rehost the video
- All of the FW: FW: FW: RE: FW: emails to our grandmas will point to the versions with the timestamp cropped out, and be presented as gospel truth
- Public approval of unions will drop from .1% to .08% (numbers pulled from ass)

Palehoof:
As with O'Keefe's usual schtick, and really with most trolls of all breeds, the method seems to be that he pretends to be an idiot, people believe that he is one, and he considers that a win condition.

Why being credibly stupid means that other people are, I have never understood.

People love to feel superior and intelligent and be around people who agree with them. Im sure you understand it.

I didnt watch the video, but from living in a corrupt union stronghold like Philly (where I personally know people who sweep up the Convention Center AND change lightbulbs for $33an hour) I already know what probably happened and how the liberals in the Fark Forums will now rip O'Keefe to tiny shreds.

Maybe the union corruption, fake ass government job bills and O'Keefe should all go away.

RolandGunner: bloobeary: Codenamechaz: And of course, seeing as it's James O'Queef, it's a good bet that the entire video was very selectively edited to take people's wors out of context and make them look bad.

It was.


I don't think they understand the meaning of the word "raw video".

Enlighten us.

Union folk will beat him so hard he'll be using a catheter for a year.

torr5962: I didnt watch the video, but from living in a corrupt union stronghold like Philly (where I personally know people who sweep up the Convention Center AND change lightbulbs for $33an hour

Why are you jealous of their success?

Gaseous Anomaly: ongbok: What the hell is up with the time stamp in that video? It keeps jumping around, getting blurred, and disappearing. How could anybody take a video that the time stamp is so obviously hinky seriously?

Seems like a good idea on their part:

- O'Keefe can claim to have been upfront about the selective editing, in an attempt to avoid legal liability
- Lost of people will crop the timestamp out and rehost the video
- All of the FW: FW: FW: RE: FW: emails to our grandmas will point to the versions with the timestamp cropped out, and be presented as gospel truth
- Public approval of unions will drop from .1% to .08% (numbers pulled from ass)

You don't even need to to that, tenpoundsofcheese already takes it as truth. Just need to say what they want to believe and it is the truth.

torr5962: Palehoof:
As with O'Keefe's usual schtick, and really with most trolls of all breeds, the method seems to be that he pretends to be an idiot, people believe that he is one, and he considers that a win condition.

Why being credibly stupid means that other people are, I have never understood.

People love to feel superior and intelligent and be around people who agree with them. Im sure you understand it.

I didnt watch the video, but from living in a corrupt union stronghold like Philly (where I personally know people who sweep up the Convention Center AND change lightbulbs for $33an hour) I already know what probably happened and how the liberals in the Fark Forums will now rip O'Keefe to tiny shreds.

Maybe the union corruption, fake ass government job bills and O'Keefe should all go away.

BSABSVR!!!

tenpoundsofcheese: Codenamechaz: And of course, seeing as it's James O'Queef, it's a good bet that the entire video was very selectively edited to take people's wors out of context and make them look bad.

or not.


Or yes, actually. Again.

mongbiohazard: tenpoundsofcheese: Codenamechaz: And of course, seeing as it's James O'Queef, it's a good bet that the entire video was very selectively edited to take people's wors out of context and make them look bad.

or not.


Or yes, actually. Again.

This is my shocked face. It's shocking.

tenpoundsofcheese: Gunther: sdd2000: I would think by this point someone could prove "actual malice" in this little pricks "reporting" and sue him into oblivion.

It amazes me that this hasn't happened already.

Can any lawyers explain how this isn't slander? I mean, it seems about as straightforward a case as possible.

oh look, you didn't watch the video!

what did he say that you would consider slander? (hint: nothing).

Go watch it, or if you are too lazy, start at 2:14.

Why won't you state clearly whether or not you believe the video in TFA is heavily edited or not.

Sock Ruh Tease: When you remember James O'Keefe steals panties and tried to rape a woman in a barn cow house, his pathetic existence sort of starts to make sense.

/soz, pet peive.

saintstryfe: I don't know what his complaint is, but O'Keefe is obviously not a New Yorker. Practically every large highway here not called a Turnpike or a Thruway is being ripped up and repaved - putting thousands to work and making the drive so much nicer.

Actually here in WNY, even the Thruway is being ripped up and repaved from the Lackawanna tolls to Fredonia.

tenpoundsofcheese: what did he say that you would consider slander? (hint: nothing).

Are you trying some retarded definitional argument on the legal meaning of the word "slander"?

The word "slander" is often used in common parlance to refer to libel, defamation, etc, even though legally it only refers to oral defamation. You know this. For once in your life, don't be a snide, petty asshole.

Gunther: tenpoundsofcheese: what did he say that you would consider slander? (hint: nothing).

Are you trying some retarded definitional argument on the legal meaning of the word "slander"?

The word "slander" is often used in common parlance to refer to libel, defamation, etc, even though legally it only refers to oral defamation. You know this. For once in your life, don't be a snide, petty asshole.

This seems unlikely.

purple kool-aid and a jigger of formaldehyde: TIKIMAN87: dudemanbro: James O'Keefe should be kicked in the nuts repeatedly until he's dead.

Don't be mad that he exposes liberal douchery.

You do know that the conservatives have earned every bit of the so called douchery against them right?

No more than liberals have.

TIKIMAN87: dudemanbro: James O'Keefe should be kicked in the nuts repeatedly until he's dead.

Don't be mad that he exposes liberal douchery.

0/10

OneTimed: It says alot about the current GOP that they hail this moron as some sort of hero of journalism. Of course, these also thought the same thing about Breitfart.

/O'Keefe looks like he's +1 chromosome

Are they any better than MSNBC, who takes a 10 minute Romney speech and edits it into a 5 second byte about how using a sandwich machine is difficult?

How about NBC editing the Zimmerman tape to paint him as a racist?

In the age of media trying to out-derp each other, the responsible individual should grab stories from both sides, realize both are probably wrong and draw their conclusions with a viewpoint somewhere in the middle.

The timestamp on a video or other digital image is as non-valid as the timestamp on any computer file. You can set it to whatever you want. So why even consider it?

o5iiawah: Are they any better than MSNBC, who takes a 10 minute Romney speech and edits it into a 5 second byte about how using a sandwich machine is difficult?

The unedited version wasn't much better for Romney.

o5iiawah: How about NBC editing the Zimmerman tape to paint him as a racist?

Didn't people get fired over that? O'Keefe is still taken seriously by right wingers despite being a criminal and a pervert.

Halli: o5iiawah: How about NBC editing the Zimmerman tape to paint him as a racist?

Didn't people get fired over that? O'Keefe is still taken seriously by right wingers despite being a criminal and a pervert.

Yes they did, but the both sides are bad so vote republican narrative doesn't care about details.

Rich Cream: The timestamp on a video or other digital image is as non-valid as the timestamp on any computer file. You can set it to whatever you want. So why even consider it?

It might be a way for O'Keefe to self-protect himself from editing the context out of the hidden camera video. He must think that in a court of law he could take the defense that of course it's highly edited, just look at the timestamp!!!

o5iiawah: In the age of media trying to out-derp each other, the responsible individual should grab stories from both sides, realize both are probably wrong and draw their conclusions with a viewpoint somewhere in the middle.

It seems reasonable, but how does that allow for false equivalence? It's kinda like saying that the truth about evolution is halfway between accepted evolutionary theory and the Christian creation myth. Just because there's two sides it doesn't mean both are wrong, and especially not wrong to an equal degree.

TIKIMAN87: purple kool-aid and a jigger of formaldehyde: TIKIMAN87: dudemanbro: James O'Keefe should be kicked in the nuts repeatedly until he's dead.

Don't be mad that he exposes liberal douchery.

You do know that the conservatives have earned every bit of the so called douchery against them right?

No more than liberals have.

You must be so proud. "We're no worse than the Liberals we despise so much!". That's a personal ideology you can really hang your hat on.

Mercutio74: Rich Cream: The timestamp on a video or other digital image is as non-valid as the timestamp on any computer file. You can set it to whatever you want. So why even consider it?

It might be a way for O'Keefe to self-protect himself from editing the context out of the hidden camera video. He must think that in a court of law he could take the defense that of course it's highly edited, just look at the timestamp!!!

By the way the conservatives are defending him too the guy doesn't even need to bother editing them out. Look at the comments from people repeatedly asking them to acknowledge it, they refuse every time.

cameroncrazy1984: mongbiohazard: tenpoundsofcheese: Codenamechaz: And of course, seeing as it's James O'Queef, it's a good bet that the entire video was very selectively edited to take people's wors out of context and make them look bad.

or not.


Or yes, actually. Again.

This is my shocked face. It's shocking.


I'm going to have that same reaction you just did when tenpoundsofcheese refuses - even in the face of the actual unedited video - to believe that that the edited video misrepresented what happened and how that should completely discredits O'Keefe's assertions. Even though it did... and since they had to spend hours actually editing the video how they did, it must necessarily have been done so intentionally.

"Intentionally misleading" is just fine though for folks who have made the decision to choose what they believe, facts just aren't as important as their emotional need to reinforce their own chosen self-flattering worldview.

Also (since I work in film editing and I'm getting a kick yadda yadda) let's not use the phrase "selectively edit". All editing is selective. The point here is that this was deceptively editing to show an event as something that it wasn't. It might be a bullshiat semantic point I'm making, but the problem isn't that the ummm... "editor"... took a point of view. It's that the editor forced the material to represent a point of view that doesn't exist in reality.

Headso: Halli: o5iiawah: How about NBC editing the Zimmerman tape to paint him as a racist?

Didn't people get fired over that? O'Keefe is still taken seriously by right wingers despite being a criminal and a pervert.

Yes they did, but the both sides are bad so vote republican narrative doesn't care about details.

Much like how people were fired over the whole Dan Rather incident but it still doesn't stop these folks from bringing it up. On the other hand I don't believe anyone from Fox has ever been disciplined for their many CG "mistakes".

THX 1138: Why oh why does the GOP continue to heap praise -official praise, on the record no less- on him when he's repeatedly demonstrated that his claims are completely fraudulent?

I say let the GOP put him on a pedestal.

Eventually, he's going to go WAY too far on a WAY too powerful person and he'll be charged and sentenced to a prison term. Not all powerful men in the US are Republicans.

After a few years in the slammer, I can guarantee he'll change his tune. Especially since it'll be made clear that if he ever pulls this shiat again he'll be in for a longer time.

He seems like a skinny little coward to me, and that will win you a couple of beauty pageants in prison, though he might not like the prize.

"Rhymes with grape, man. (whispers) Grape."

Mercutio74: Also (since I work in film editing and I'm getting a kick yadda yadda) let's not use the phrase "selectively edit". All editing is selective. The point here is that this was deceptively editing to show an event as something that it wasn't. It might be a bullshiat semantic point I'm making, but the problem isn't that the ummm... "editor"... took a point of view. It's that the editor forced the material to represent a point of view that doesn't exist in reality.


You're absolutely correct, but it's not important to the discussion at hand. You know what we mean... He intentionally misrepresented the contents of the video they shot with their editing.

jakomo002: He seems like a skinny little coward to me, and that will win you a couple of beauty pageants in prison, though he might not like the prize.

"Rhymes with grape, man. (whispers) Grape."

Exactly. No one want to wear that farking prison cape. The material itches your neck like a motherfarker.

It's funny because even without knowing about the raw footage, I knew O'keefe was full of shiat like usual. Made the mistake of saying so in the comments on the edited video on YouTube and called him a creepy piece of trash whose videos are all misleading fabrications.

Within an hour I was called uneducated by some guy who went off on a tangent about 'libtards' and 'lefty loonies', and basically told that, like all 'lefties', my cognitive dissonance prevented me from seeing the great truths O'keefe was peddling and I needed to step away from the bullshiat I was feeding off of.

Oh, and my original comment calling O'keefe dishonest creepy trash was down voted until it was hidden by default. Strangely, I felt pretty good about that.

Halli: Didn't people get fired over that? O'Keefe is still taken seriously by right wingers despite being a criminal and a pervert.

Only after people like Sean Hannity exposed it for a month or so

Halli: The unedited version wasn't much better for Romney.

He was making a point that you could order a sandwich in less than a minute but it took an optometrist months to change his address. Newsflash: political candidate speeches often contain anecdotal evidence of people or places near the crowd. No politician goes to Sioux Falls and says: "So ya know, I was in Atlanta last week! Boy is that place grand"

coeyagi: If you can point me to the website that has as much dirt on MSNBC as Media Matters does on Fox, go for it. (MRC is all "whah, liberal bias!" but they rarely have anything solid on MSNBC.)

Do I need to re-iterate my point that entertainment news is garbage and that people should draw their own conclusions?

o5iiawah: Halli: Didn't people get fired over that? O'Keefe is still taken seriously by right wingers despite being a criminal and a pervert.

Only after people like Sean Hannity exposed it for a month or so

We have years of O'Keefe being exposed as a liar at this point...

h0lmesdaddy: is he still living with his folks? For somebody so enamored with shaming people living off the system, he's not very independent.

Yeah, he's like a modern-day Thoreau, except that Thoreau had brains and talent and the decency to absent his unpleasant self from the world, while O'Keefe is a moronic, cretinous, complete waste of space that could be better filled with a set of cot-death triplets and a one-legged dung-beetle.

CheneyPepperedMe: CTRL-F "punchable face"

0 of 0 results

I am shocked.

Did you try "backpfeifengesicht"?

THX 1138: Why oh why does the GOP continue to heap praise -official praise, on the record no less- on him when he's repeatedly demonstrated that his claims are completely fraudulent?

Remember Voltaire's reported deathbed reply to the priest who asked him to renounce Satan and turn to the Lord? The old-guard GOP are moribund, and the party as is once was is on its deathbed. The new crop are keeping the name but scrapping the values. "Now, now, my good man, this is no time to be making enemies."

TIKIMAN87: purple kool-aid and a jigger of formaldehyde: TIKIMAN87: dudemanbro: James O'Keefe should be kicked in the nuts repeatedly until he's dead.

Don't be mad that he exposes liberal douchery.

You do know that the conservatives have earned every bit of the so called douchery against them right?

No more than liberals have.

Oh were playing that game?
I know you are but what am I :p

/petulant children

purple kool-aid and a jigger of formaldehyde: TIKIMAN87: purple kool-aid and a jigger of formaldehyde: TIKIMAN87: dudemanbro: James O'Keefe should be kicked in the nuts repeatedly until he's dead.

Don't be mad that he exposes liberal douchery.

You do know that the conservatives have earned every bit of the so called douchery against them right?

No more than liberals have.

Oh were playing that game?
I know you are but what am I :p

/petulant children

uggg "we're" (whateva)

If we want to compare douchyness though I can start listing examples and you can try to counter them. That sounds like a funner game to me.

I will start.
Gay marriage
Muslim churches
Christian Nation
Racism
AHA
Vaginas
YOU LIE
Debt Ceiling
Filibuster
Citizens United
Voter Intimidation
Fox News
Rush

Just to name a few

Gunther: sdd2000: I would think by this point someone could prove "actual malice" in this little pricks "reporting" and sue him into oblivion.

It amazes me that this hasn't happened already.

Can any lawyers explain how this isn't slander? I mean, it seems about as straightforward a case as possible.

There is slander and libelous slander. Such cases are difficult and expensive to pursue and the chances of winning are not good. You have to prove intent and prove that the defense would have to have known better and show damages. Otherwise the case is easily defended under free speech rules.

Worse, you have to grant the defense the power of discovery, where they can requisition all sorts of stuff from you not related to the case and make it public. It is a rare organization -- particularly a union! -- that wouldn't have all sorts of stuff that would be embarrassing to be brought to light. They can find stuff that the people in the organization didn't even know about.

So most lawyers would say just let the slime ooze back under the rock where it came from.

tenpoundsofcheese: Cozret: tenpoundsofcheese: oh what a surprise, the left calling for a person's violent death because they don't like being exposed for the frauds that they are.

Sorry, no points.

got it.
you think it is okay to call for someone's violent death.

no surprise.

Maybe he's doing it to see what other people say in response.

It's how O'Keefe operates.

Now, if you want to say O'Keefe actually is a pimp of underage girls...

tenpoundsofcheese: Cozret: tenpoundsofcheese: oh what a surprise, the left calling for a person's violent death because they don't like being exposed for the frauds that they are.

Sorry, no points.

got it.
you think it is okay to call for someone's violent death.

no surprise.

I in no way think its appropriate to advocate the murder of anyone for any reason. Now, with that said, I can comfortably say that if someone were to ventilate Mr. O'keefe's skull with a fire ax while whistling the 1812 overture... no tears would be shed this way.