Reply With Quote
The Disavow.
The implication that what he is doing is somehow justified because of "what the liberal media does" is pretty clear.
If lying isn't justified, your lack of condemnation is either a sloppy oversight, or intentional omission.
Which is it, sloppy or the intentional rationalization of lying?
If I got it wrong, clear it up for me, and I take it back.
The Disavow.
Nope. He is saying that you implicitly supported it, which you did. Don't try to weasel out of it.
Otherwiseyou could've said "I don't agree with this, but the Left does it too."
We aren't that dumb WC.
Frankly I'm surprised WC didn't use his famous skepticism and try to imply that the original video was the true one, and the unedited copy was the fake.
Speak for yourself, Brock.
Yes, I interject my opinion there that I solidly believe. That still isn't condoning O'Keefe's work. I'm just saying Moore is worse.
Yet you decided to share that solid belief in a thread about O'keefe.
Oooookay.
My only support is that I sometimes get a kick out of the " for tat." I find it so ironic how furious the lefties get over the likes of O'Keefe, but will defend the likes of Moore.
Why does it matter when I say it. The subject prompts the reply.Yet you decided to share that solid belief in a thread about O'keefe.
Oooookay.
I don't know what the facts are of his editing. If you notice, I didn't defend him here, because I do believe he may have changed the context.
Think about it. How often, when I am skeptical about a reported account, I ask for "full context?"
Is the way I choose to word things really that big of an issue to get excited over?
Are you confusing me with a conspiracy theorist?
Then you must be disappointed that no one is really defending Moore.
... and you still haven't cleared up what you say is my "assumption"
Is your omission of any condemnation of lying on the part of Okeefe, sloppy, or was it a purposefully intended to give the impression of supporting his actions?
You seem to be implying the former.
... says the guy who is convinced that there is a conspiracy of scientists regarding global warming theory.
“If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send it to anyone.”... says the guy who is convinced that there is a conspiracy of scientists regarding global warming theory.
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
“Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report and Briffa’s suspect tree-ring data]. Keith will do likewise.”
...And the guy who just called the entire media (minus Fox News, I assume) liberal.... says the guy who is convinced that there is a conspiracy of scientists regarding global warming theory.
What's inaccurate about that statement?
I wish I could say that your automatic reposting of these quotes surprised me.
As it is, why don't you just program a 'bot to do it for you automatically? It seems so labor intensive to repost these things by hand at the drop of any mention of AGW.
You have to remember that, for what seems to be the vast majority of conservatives in this country, "liberal" is defined as anything less conservatively biased than Fox "News".
You could have something studiously and deliberately as neutral as possible, and it would still be actively derided as "liberal".
It is one of the more distasteful conservative double standards, IMO, because it actively poisons so much dialogue.
Thanks for making my point for me.
Cmon now. Brock is intelligent for the "musclebound bruiser" role. Not as intelligent as, say, Beast from the X-Men, but he's no Hulk.Speak for yourself, Brock.
Most of the people in this thread probably wouldn't support Michael Moore.
Just teasing you about your "skepticism", which tends to lean one way more than the other.
My skepticism goes both ways. It's just that it is normally favoring conservatives because of the nature of this forum.
Scott Baker, editor in chief of the conservative news site The Blaze, tells David that after watching the two-hour video he came away with the impression that the NPR executives "seem to be fairly balanced people."
The funny thing about this story is the media ran with it, liberals went running for cover, and NPR started firing people without getting the full unedited video to see if it was the truth. It took Glenn Beck and his organization to do that.
There was only one person fired by NPR, and what was said, full truth or not, was "egregious".
You think Okeefe would have given CNN full unedited versions of his tapes?
Don't be naive.
...the Tea Party a "weird evangelical" movement that has helped push the "current Republican Party" to become "fanatically involved in people's personal lives."
Seems pretty accurate.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions