Project Veritas Action: Rigging the Election Part 3 - Creamer Confirms Hillary Clinton Involvement
151 replies, posted
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;51264988][URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1539005&p=51259399&viewfull=1#post51259399"]Yeah, this post is so small and has so little text in it it's really entirely understandable that you missed it and I owe you an apology.[/URL]
And the first remains unproven and he won't release the unedited footage. It's still all worthless until he does that.
I like how you proceed to regurgitate arguments that, again, were already addressed in the past two pages. Just like everyone who rolled in to defend a known fraud's edited footage.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I guess I missed your post, sorry about that.
Yeah I guess that woudl make sense in SOME ways, some ways it wouldnt make sense, for such a high ranking official to be fired just like that, I understand firing some low level callcenter rat but a major political figure? sounds a bit sketchy.
But you say in that post that you refuse to watch the videos, what do you think will happen if you do?
are you scared that it might make sense? you might turn into a trumpet? or a racist?
refusing to watch it is stupid IMO, very very stupid.
[QUOTE=Axelius;51265038]Yeah I guess I missed your post, sorry about that.
Yeah I guess that woudl make sense in SOME ways, some ways it wouldnt make sense, for such a high ranking official to be fired just like that, I understand firing some low level callcenter rat but a major political figure? sounds a bit sketchy.
But you say in that post that you refuse to watch the videos, what do you think will happen if you do?
are you scared that it might make sense? you might turn into a trumpet? or a racist?
refusing to watch it is stupid IMO, very very stupid.[/QUOTE]
as is refusing to educate yourself on the one and only reason why o'keefe is at all relevant today
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51265022]So you don't think he'd be dangerous is what you're saying[/QUOTE]
he might be, or he might not be. Who am I to say, I can't vote in this election but if I could I would probably still vote trump. I don't agree with his shit on planned parenthood and dismantling obamacare.
But when the other candidate is so clearly a happy face, smiling, warmonger that has been involved in these USA military operations in the past, it just sickens me that that kind of person could even run for president.
about Trump: kind of a weird guy, he might be good or bad, but these shady USA military actions / false flags and BLM and the sorts need to be stopped, not given more ground, these shitfests are already spreading to europe, and we are getting the bad end of USA war campaings.
[QUOTE=Axelius;51264928]I know that that's the case he was charged with, cutting video on some prostitute thing, trying to make someone look quilty.
Does not make any diffrence in this case.[/QUOTE]
yeah except it objectively does make a difference though? seeing as it answers your previous question
[QUOTE=Axelius;51264477]Ok, so answer this question. Why were the people who were in the veritas videos fired if they did nothing wrong ?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy"]In response to release of the first videos, ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis said on Fox News on September 20, 2009, "in a way, this was good for us, so what it did was show up to us what weaknesses we have, and we have moved swiftly ... in order to correct that."[/URL] [B]She said that after viewing the tapes, she had fired all the employees featured and had begun a comprehensive external investigation.[/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]In the San Bernardino office, ACORN employee Tresa Kaelke told O'Keefe and Giles they could classify the underage brothel as a "group home" to avoid detection; she suggested the pair "invest in a line of vitamins" to disguise the location's true purpose.[58] Later, Kaelke stated she believed the activists were joking and made a variety of absurd or joking statements to them.[59][60] She said they were "somewhat entertaining, but they weren't even good actors".[61] Office supervisor Christina Spach said Kaelke "pretended to cooperate with O'Keefe and Giles because she feared for her safety". Kaelke responded to the pair's requests for help setting up a child-prostitution ring on the video by claiming to be an ex-prostitute and exclaiming, "Heidi Fleiss is my hero!"[62] The California Attorney General's investigation of Kaelke determined that "none of her claims" on the video were true, that "she was playing along with what she perceived as a joke", and there was "no evidence she had ever engaged in prostitution".[9] According to CNN, the filmmakers released a transcript of their discussion with Kaelke that included a comment left out of the originally released tape in which Kaelke said that ACORN would have nothing to do with their prostitution business.[63] Kaelke said that her supervisor "would shoot this down faster than a bat out of hell", but advised the couple to conceal the prostitution business by calling it a massage parlor.[58] [B]Kaelke was fired by ACORN after the videos were released.[/B]
In the San Diego office, edited video showed ACORN employee Juan Carlos Vera telling O'Keefe he had "contacts" in "Tijuana" to help get underage girls across the border.[64] But, after the discussion with O'Keefe, Vera reported O'Keefe's fabricated plan for human smuggling to police.[65][66][67] [B]Vera was fired for what ACORN called "unacceptable conduct". Vera had said he tried to help the fake prostitute because she said that she needed to escape her controlling pimp.[68][/B] On July 8, 2010, after the AG's Report confirmed that he had contacted the police to try to thwart the couple's smuggling plan, Vera filed a civil suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against O'Keefe and Giles for recording him without his permission, which was a violation of California law.[69][70] In July 2012, Giles settled the case with Vera, leaving Vera's lawsuit with O'Keefe to move forward.[71][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]On October 21, O'Keefe and Giles released video footage of their visit to the Philadelphia office of ACORN at a National Press Club conference. They claimed it was to show they had received help there, after an ACORN spokesman had said that the pair had been asked to leave the Philadelphia office.[78] The Washington Post "obtained a July 24 police report that showed police were called when O'Keefe and Giles attempted their sting at ACORN's Philadelphia offices—and that the couple were escorted out of those offices". [B]Susan Kinzie of The Washington Post noted that "the heavily edited footage includes audio of the two conservatives but none of the ACORN Housing Corp. worker's responses to their questions."[/B][/QUOTE]
so actually yes, it changes two very big things
1. O'Keefe can and has cut out necessary context or removed statements that are too difficult to edit, to the point of actually asking leading questions in interviews to get the desired answer, and thus any cut can be anything from innocuous to complete fabrication
2. firing the filmed individuals isn't an admission of guilt on the part of the individuals or the institution
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;51265048]as is refusing to educate yourself on the one and only reason why o'keefe is at all relevant today[/QUOTE]
Then we agree. I guess I should read on that case a bit more. Hard to find sources that aren't biased.
I refuse to watch it for the same reason I refuse to watch American Idol and basically all mainstream TV. I'm not afraid that I'm going to turn into some sort of credit-card-swiping celebrity-worshipping consumer slave. Likewise I'm not afraid that I'm going to turn into some sort of Pepe-posting /pol/ stereotype, but I don't feel the need to pollute my eyes with shit from a confirmed fraud.
If he releases the unedited tapes, that would be something I would consider worth watching, because the unedited recordings have value -- they contain the truth. O'Keefe's carefully-edited videos are that truth filtered through an [I]established[/I] bias, given that it's public knowledge that he's been paid at least $10,000 by Trump for this, and when asked, O'Keefe stated [B]he will not release the unedited recordings[/B].
One is a true record of the conversation that allegedly reveals illegal collusion, and the other is a carefully-edited series of sound bites with context determined by editorial fiat. This is precisely how O'Keefe faked the ACORN scandal videos. Why should I give any credibility at all to something that I can assume is faked, [U]when this is an exact repeat of his previous moves which were confirmed to be fraudulent?[/U]
[QUOTE=Axelius;51265085]Then we agree. I guess I should read on that case a bit more. Hard to find sources that aren't biased.[/QUOTE]
indeed. i hate biased sources!
[QUOTE=Axelius;51263905][video=youtube;uBxNG-oeNDw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBxNG-oeNDw[/video]
Opinion on this, brainwashed Hillary supporters.[/QUOTE]
oh no, i just now randomly posted that quote by mistake, how embarrassing
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51264486]Wikileaks is shit because they have changed. They do not curate, they follo an agenda, they do not validate their sources. Explain this headline:[/QUOTE]
WikiLeaks has never curated or exposed their sources.. As for the headline, what exactly is the issue? "Oh no, they revealed who is funding a campaign against Putin, the horror!"
[QUOTE=Cone;51265077]yeah except it objectively does make a difference though? seeing as it answers your previous question
so actually yes, it changes two very big things
1. O'Keefe can and has cut out necessary context or removed statements that are too difficult to edit, to the point of actually asking leading questions in interviews to get the desired answer, and thus any cut can be anything from innocuous to complete fabrication
2. firing the filmed individuals isn't an admission of guilt on the part of the individuals or the institution[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the post, I need to read more on the subject.
I'm wondering what the agenda was, to dismantle ACORN?
[editline]26th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;51265101]indeed. i hate biased sources!
oh no, i just now randomly posted that quote by mistake, how embarrassing[/QUOTE]
Refusing to watch evidence that might be false fits my definition for brainwashed.
[QUOTE=Axelius;51265133]Thanks for the post, I need to read more on the subject.
I'm wondering what the agenda was, to dismantle ACORN?
Refusing to watch evidence that might be false fits my definition for brainwashed.[/QUOTE]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy[/url]
The problem is that anything O'Keefe puts out, until he releases unedited recordings, only qualifies as "evidence", in quotes. If he releases the full recordings, then we're talking about [U]evidence[/U].
[QUOTE=Axelius;51265133]Refusing to watch evidence that might be false fits my definition for brainwashed.[/QUOTE]
posting the video i quoted while complaining about biased sources fits my definition for hypocrite
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;51265092]I refuse to watch it for the same reason I refuse to watch American Idol and basically all mainstream TV. I'm not afraid that I'm going to turn into some sort of credit-card-swiping celebrity-worshipping consumer slave. Likewise I'm not afraid that I'm going to turn into some sort of Pepe-posting /pol/ stereotype, but I don't feel the need to pollute my eyes with shit from a confirmed fraud.
If he releases the unedited tapes, that would be something I would consider worth watching, because the unedited recordings have value -- they contain the truth. O'Keefe's carefully-edited videos are that truth filtered through an [I]established[/I] bias, given that it's public knowledge that he's been paid at least $10,000 by Trump for this, and when asked, O'Keefe stated [B]he will not release the unedited recordings[/B].
One is a true record of the conversation that allegedly reveals illegal collusion, and the other is a carefully-edited series of sound bites with context determined by editorial fiat. This is precisely how O'Keefe faked the ACORN scandal videos. Why should I give any credibility at all to something that I can assume is faked, [U]when this is an exact repeat of his previous moves which were confirmed to be fraudulent?[/U][/QUOTE]
Fair enough, I would like to see the full tapes released aswell.
Could there be anyway to make him do it? Maybe a full blown investigation, but as I said, they won't do that, they would rather pretend these videos don't excist, wich is shady as fuck to me.
[editline]26th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;51265182]posting the video i quoted while complaining about biased sources fits my definition for hypocrite[/QUOTE]
There is no non-biased videos that talk about the subject.
and the video I posted is fake because?
its biased because?
oh, wait you answered that already.
[quote=Zukriuchen]
very bad presentation, poor diction, and the angsty intonation on his whispery, better-not-wake-up-my-parents voice makes it awful to sit through
there's my opinion of it
[/quote]
fits my definiton of a Strawman.
[QUOTE=Axelius;51265185]There is no non-biased videos that talk about the subject.
and the video I posted is fake because?
its biased because?
oh, wait you answered that already.
fits my definiton of a Strawman.[/QUOTE]
unless you can pinpoint where i said it's fake, it's you who are using a strawman here lol
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;51265246]unless you can pinpoint where i said it's fake, it's you who are using a strawman here lol[/QUOTE]
well you refuse to talk about the points in the video so I guess we are getting nowhere.
also fun to observe how "there is no non-biased video about this subject" is directly followed by "why is this video biased?"
[editline]26th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Axelius;51265250]well you refuse to talk about the points in the video so I guess we are getting nowhere.[/QUOTE]
wow good job completely dodging that
let me reiterate: where did i say it's fake? please quote me on that before implying i did
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;51265251]also fun to observe how "there is no non-biased video about this subject" is directly followed by "why is this video biased?"[/quote]
I wrote that in a weird order.
The only video I have seen on the subject, and if its biased towards trump, so what?
[editline]26th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;51265251]
wow good job completely dodging that
let me reiterate: where did i say it's fake? please quote me on that before implying i did[/QUOTE]
you didn't say it but you are acting like it is.
[QUOTE=Axelius;51265265]you didn't say it but you are acting like it is.[/QUOTE]
you're acting like a Staphylinidae beetle pretending to be a human right now tbh. you didn't say it, but i'll use this personal interpretation whenever i interact with you from now on, because there's no way my assumption would ever get in the way of proper, civil discussion, is there?
[editline]26th October 2016[/editline]
why judge people by what they say? i'll judge people by what i say instead
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;51265299]you're acting like a Staphylinidae beetle pretending to be a human right now tbh. you didn't say it, but i'll use this personal interpretation whenever i interact with you from now on, because there's no way my assumption would ever get in the way of proper, civil discussion, is there?
[editline]26th October 2016[/editline]
why judge people by what they say? i'll judge people by what i say instead[/QUOTE]
Well. talk about the video then. You didn't say anything else but rag on the presentation.
you are doing the exact same thing you are accusing me of.
Have a civil discussion then, I was provoking a response with the message under the video, and it clearly worked becuase you are so pissed off.
but if you think the video is biased, point out why.
if you are going to ignore the videos points, I'm going to ignore you.
you've been just pissing around here contributing absolutely no info to the table.
[QUOTE=Axelius;51265312]Well. talk about the video then. You didn't say anything else but rag on the presentation.
you are doing the exact same thing you are accusing me of.[/QUOTE]
why does the video you posted hold so much credibility in your eyes
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51265325]why does the video you posted hold so much credibility in your eyes[/QUOTE]
I NEVER SAID THAT FUCKING BEETLES :D
stop trying to pretend being human.
Its just a video, it show the O´Keefe part and the correlation between the emails.
[QUOTE=Axelius;51265312]I was provoking a response with the message under the video, and it clearly worked becuase you are so pissed off.[/QUOTE]
one would have a hard time understanding why you oppose the dnc's tactics, then
[QUOTE=Axelius;51265355]I NEVER SAID THAT FUCKING BEETLES :D
stop trying to pretend being human.
Its just a video, it show the O´Keefe part and the correlation between the emails.[/QUOTE]
maybe go calm down or something
Hey how about you actually tell us what points he's making instead of dropping a super biased obnoxious video that nobody wants to watch? I'm not going to sit through 7 minutes of this guy and fucking analyze the whole thing. You watched it, you know what argument he made, and you agree with it. What does he have to say that hasn't been addressed here? I mean this shit reminds me of when people in 9/11 conspiracy threads just like to drop a two hour documentary and expect that somehow that makes his argument for him. That's not making an argument, that's being phenomenally lazy. Make an argument, don't make us trudge through shitty biased videos.
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;51265358]one would have a hard time understanding why you oppose the dnc's tactics, then[/QUOTE]
No one should have as much power as Hillary Clinton.
and provoking a response on a internet forum is pretty minor to things like, provoking violence, voter fraud and using the media to spread lies. That is assuming the O´Keefe videos are true, which I think they are, but time will tell when the evidence starts piling up, one way or the other.
My opinion is not set in stone.
good night going to sleep, its almost 2 am here.
[editline]26th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;51265386]Hey how about you actually tell us what points he's making instead of dropping a super biased obnoxious video that nobody wants to watch? I'm not going to sit through 7 minutes of this guy and fucking analyze the whole thing. You watched it, you know what argument he made, and you agree with it. What does he have to say that hasn't been addressed here? I mean this shit reminds me of when people in 9/11 conspiracy threads just like to drop a two hour documentary and expect that somehow that makes his argument for him. That's not making an argument, that's being phenomenally lazy. Make an argument, don't make us trudge through shitty biased videos.[/QUOTE]
7-minutes of your precious time, who is being lazy here.
maybe tomorrow I make a list. or a Banme.
[editline]26th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51265367]maybe go calm down or something[/QUOTE]
it was a joke about the other dude calling me a beetle, which I found hilarious.
[QUOTE=Axelius;51265391]No one should have as much power as Hillary Clinton.
and provoking a response on a internet forum is pretty minor to things like, provoking violence, voter fraud and using the media to spread lies. That is assuming the O´Keefe videos are true, which I think they are, but time will tell when the evidence starts piling up, one way or the other.
My opinion is not set in stone.
good night going to sleep, its almost 2 am here.
[editline]26th October 2016[/editline]
7-minutes of your precious time, who is being lazy here.
maybe tomorrow I make a list. or a Banme.
[editline]26th October 2016[/editline]
it was a joke about the other dude calling me a beetle, which I found hilarious.[/QUOTE]
She doesn't have that much power
how much power do you think she has
she's not even the president and you're acting irrational about her power because you've been fucking drinking the kool aid
No one wants to watch a video of a person with a horrible voice who can't make concise points to save their lives. Apparently, neither do you because you won't even take the 30 seconds to spell out the major arguments, so, did you even watch it or was it supposed to be your hail mary and that failed?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51265432]She doesn't have that much power
how much power do you think she has
she's not even the president and you're acting irrational about her power because you've been fucking drinking the kool aid
No one wants to watch a video of a person with a horrible voice who can't make concise points to save their lives. Apparently, neither do you because you won't even take the 30 seconds to spell out the major arguments, so, did you even watch it or was it supposed to be your hail mary and that failed?[/QUOTE]
one more for the road.
Couple of the worlds largest media companies in her pocket, funded by some of the richest people in the world * cough * Goldman sachs.
That is some amount of power.
your loss if you don't want to watch the video, I'm not going to make you. It's just funny to me, that so many people want the full O'Keefe tapes but when another video comes by, you want it bite sized without even watching it. Probably the reason that he so heavily edited the videos because no one wants to sit trough 10 hours of footage, this way they get more attention to the topic.
how about form your own opinion on it.
OP didn't have to list any points made in the video.
sleep . now .
So she controls them?
Source?
Every presidential candidate has taken money from Sachs except Trump but he took money from Peter Thiel a piece of human garbage so pick your poison
[QUOTE=Axelius;51265391]That is assuming the O´Keefe videos are true, which I think they are, but time will tell when the evidence starts piling up, one way or the other[/QUOTE]
Why do you think he won't release the unedited footage? If what he says is true, and he did release them, that would be damning evidence. Don't you think it's strange that he doesn't, then?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51265515]So she controls them?
Source?
Every presidential candidate has taken money from Sachs except Trump but he took money from Peter Thiel a piece of human garbage so pick your poison[/QUOTE]
CNN cutting off people from air for talking badly about clinton,
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lc9tXWZd5eo[/url]
just a search for clinton and bias on youtube, look trough it if you're intrested.
[url]https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=clinton+bias[/url]
need to read on who is Peter Thiel.
pick your poison is exactly what this election is. Intresting shit no matter who wins.
[editline]26th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;51265549]Why do you think he won't release the unedited footage? If what he says is true, and he did release them, that would be damning evidence. Don't you think it's strange that he doesn't, then?[/QUOTE]
Yes I think it's strange. But there are a couple of reasons that he might do it.
1. protect his reporters
2. wait for the bitsize shit to trickle down on the public.
3. hes full of shit.
I don't even think Fox News reports on this, if the GOP propaganda machine won't use it then it really does say something about its credibility.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.