Already been debunked: James O'Keefe Fails To Find A Scandal, Union And Public Works Edition | Blog | Media Matters for America

Whenever I hear James O'Keefe's name I hope it's because he is being arrested or getting his ass kicked:(

Aw man, I was so sure that this would be the one to actually not be a fraud. Oh well, maybe next time. Oh well. :(

Thanks.

How about a public comment that it appears heavily edited and most of the stuff seems out of context? Clearly there are many many businesses trying to profit from the money the government wants to give away, but this isn't anything earth shattering there.

I would try to get more in detail, but I don't really think you care as much to figure out minutiae like details.

Though I'm sure Beck and Hannity will be leading with this tonight and inviting him on.

Serious question though. What is legality of filming people without their knowledge, then heavily editing it to make them look bad and posting it to the world? I mean, can anyone just splice some hidden camera footage to make it look like people are doing unethical and illegal things?

The problem is if he does ever run into a legitimate scandal or instance of fraud, his reputation is so shot, no one is going to believe him.


You're welcome.


On a side note...Having never seen any of his previous videos and now seeing this one. DUDE!!! USE A TRIPOD FOR YOUR CAMERA!! I felt like I was watching a crappy sequel to the Blair Witch Project during his opening monologue.

Asking for a public comment from the group in a James O'Keefe video is like demanding an expert biologist comment on the newest bigfoot video.

He was supposed to spend it on infrastructure development to help provide jobs, not more paybacks to the companies that got us into trouble in the first place. He did very little to fix the root cause of the collapse in the first place, and essentially rewarded those that screwed us over (Bush did as well).

Just curious. I've fortunately (or unfortunately) learned a whole lot about how politics at the state level works over the past few months. Has anyone ever dug into whether James is receiving money from groups to finance his work and/or assist him in finding these people? FWIW, I don't believe for a second that the men in the video haven't been involved in some form of scam to get public funds. But I also don't believe that Mr. O'Keefe is just a guy who is concerned about the welfare of our country and is doing these 'truth-finding' missions out of the good of his own heart.

I am not too familiar with this doof. How/why is he being repeatedly undone by his own raw video? Is he required to hand over the raw tapes as some sort of journalistic duty? If so, why would you make such sensational vidoes and try to pass them off as real, if you knew they were going to be disproven as soon as someone watches the raw video? Conversely, if the raw video just keeps repeatedly leaking out of his own camp, why the hell does he even keep it in the first place?

I have no idea. From the look of just this one video, it looks like it's him and some college buddies, using his moms camcorder. However, given the subjects of his past videos, I'm led to believe it's one of two things.

1. He's putting us all on and he's mocking the whole 'undercover' stories that various news shows do and since due diligence isn't something that seems to be practiced much anymore by news aggregates, that's how they manage to get on Fox and other news channels/websites. They did the first one and that somehow got legs, so now it's just a long running joke.

2. He's serious, but, is so delusional that he doesn't realize that we (the ubiquitous we) can tell that it's been "Photoshopped" each and every time, yet he thinks he's really making a difference in the world. Again, because of a lack of due diligence by news aggregates and news organizations, it gets its 15 seconds of fame.

There is another possibility, that he's serving as a propaganda artist on the basis of several factors.
1) There will be people who believe his story because it preaches to there belief and they'll get fired up by it
2) People will remember the story and think of it as having a factual basis even after they heard it wasn't true
3) It will stir up controversy and possibly lead to action before it's proven false (see: ACORN)

On #2 I don't remember the name of it from psychology classes I've taken, but over time people will go back to believing something they heard even if they learned it was wrong. In a quick search I was able to find an ABC news article on it.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/peo...1#.UBLLAWGe5rR

'Proven false' is a relative term here. I feel the same way about the ACORN situation that I do about all of O'Keefe's videos. They may be able to show some level of doubt after viewing the entire video, but I don't for a minute believe that there was no funny business going on there. His problem is that he works too hard to make it sensational at the level he thinks is needed to get the most attention.

He got famous for posting a heavily edited video, got his fifteen mintues of fame, and has been trying to repeat it ever since.

James O'Keefe's CNN Prank FAILS: Activist Planned To Stage Seduction Of Abbie Boudreau On Floating 'Pleasure Palace'

This is depressing: A new poll (Cited in NR and the Washington Times, those liberal bastions) showed that the percentage of Republicans who think Mr. Obama is Muslim has nearly doubled over the past four years, from 16 percent in 2008 to 30 percent this month.

Wtf is with these people?

He was funded in part by Andrew Breitbart and has a nonprofit which I'm sure has received plenty of conservative money. He is on Fox News a decent amount too. He's been blasted/debunked in Time, Washington Post, and more, yet people keep giving him credence.

I think it's called cognitive dissonance.

Ah, just read the article. Sounds like it's very similar to cognitive dissonance. Conspiracy nutjobs pretty much fit into that mold in my opinion. It's also done by the same people that claim Obama is a muslim, despite time and time again, he has reaffirmed his christian faith.



I disagree. Kept in the context of his video, from what little I read about it, it was indeed proven false. Anything else that ACORN may have done is irrelevant in regards to the video.

Your comment, unless I read it wrong, I think shows the article that mckerney linked too, in action. I don't even know what ACORN does, but, I suspect that what they do, does not line up with some of your beliefs, so you're more likely to be suspicious even if someone points out something that is completely false. I'm guilty doing things like that too, so please don't think I'm bashing you or anything like that. I'm just trying to point out at how easily we can be led astray based on our already biased beliefs about something, even after all the evidence and the magic 8 ball says 'Definitely No'.

Yeah, it's different than cognitive dissonance and it does perfectly fit in explaining why people would believe Obama is a Muslim if it was the first thing they heard about his faith is that he was a Muslim. Even if they are corrected after time passes many people are likely to go back to the first thing they heard about him even if they have learned it was false, unless they are constantly confronted with the correction.

It does have a large impact on political campaigns and the importance of a candidate being the first to define themselves and their opponent. A false allegation from an opponent that defines the candidate in a certain way and they'll need to spend their entire campaign correcting that viewpoint.

I'm willing to bet that it's used by all sides of the political spectrum to do just that. Get those biases in early to build the foundation of distrust. It puts their opponent on the defense early that can, could and does cost money that could be spent elsewhere. Especially knowing the laziness of our populace here in the states that aren't willing to do their own homework to find out what is and isn't factual.

I'm sure it is. If it works it basically forces your opponent to either concede that defeat in that area to whatever segment of the public believes it or spend time and money defending themselves trying to correct it. Not only would that take away from being able to go after your opponent, it's also runs the risk of making them look bad continuously repeating the message in their defense since a single message months before the election won't be enough to correct people.

It doesn't even have to do with my beliefs. I've seen enough misuse of public funds in the past five months even at the local level on both sides and heard about things happening at the state and federal level that would make you want to puke. I'm not going to say that ACORN is or isn't a politically bias organization using taxpayer funds, but I am saying that this kind of stuff happens far too often in our government and it wouldn't shock me if it was truthful at some level, even if they do have evidence that the O'Keefe kid WAY overplayed his hand or even manipulated it.

He's actually hurting the opportunity of others to expose corruption because of his repeated 'cry wolf' moments. If you aren't going to report it exactly as it happened, don't bother and let someone else who actually has information that shows the facts in a way that doesn't allow people to so easily dismiss them.

I doubt he care's if he's hurting the opportunity of others. I'll bet that come November there will be people repeating the line about Obama's green jobs program using tax dollars to dig holes and fill them back in, which will probably make the story a success in his mind. That's likely his goal being he's shown time and time again that his interest isn't in journalism.

Fox News will probably use it to rally up their base and it may have an impact on people on the fence that don't pay much attention.

You bring up a good point. I think in just about any organization you are going to find some form of fraud, waste and abuse. Especially in governmental organizations. I think it's the 'kid in the candy store' situation with them. I think another key thing to look at would be, is it an organizational thing, is it some employees doing this on their own, is it a flawed system, etc? It's hard to pin down when all you have is a video that looks like it was edited by Mrs. Johnson's 7th grade TV production class.

O'Keefe is basically the equivalent of a Big Foot videographer claiming he has proof of Big Foot. He needs to back up his claims with more than just horribly edited videos and even then because he has zero credibility, that more than likely won't help him.

Just an interesting note on Soviet Naval ambitions (and limitations). A long ways from restart of cold war but would be interesting to see what US strategy would be if it was based in Cuba.

Russia wants naval bases abroad: report - Yahoo! News

One of numerous polls (can't keep track on which ones are more reputable but think Rasmussen is). Interesting to see majority of people (including me) believe Romney is moderate/somewhat conservative.

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports™

Isn't Rasmussen the notoriously (R)-leaning pollster? I haven't seen polls showing any sort of advantage for Romney, let alone to that degree, in a long long time.

I still find it laughable that people find Obama very liberal.

SI

Likability.

In Romney vs. Obama, competence may be trumped by likability - The Washington Post

Rush Limbaugh, who never saw a controversy that he couldn't jump in with both feet (which he then stuffs into his mouth) calls Boston mayer Tom Menino and Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel Stalinists for their opposition to Chick-Fil-A opening stores in those areas due to chick fil-a's opposition to gay marriage.

Stalinist is over the top, but its the wrong thing to do. Either has a perfect right to criticize, but they shouldn't unilaterally declare that the government won't allow the restaurants.

I'm sick of hearing that there is discrimination here. They have not refused service to anyone. They have a belief, they have freedom of speech, and if you don't want to eat there because of what they believe and speak then don't. (not you specifically...in general)

Sadly, I find myself agreeing with some people that disgust me over this one because it's a real slippery slope people are jumping to over this whole situation.

I don't mind boycotts, but I think they are the wrong approach. I'd run a campaign of "Every Day is Gay Day at Chik-Fil-A." I'd make as many as possible the biggest gay hangouts imaginable. That would get far more publicity than a boycott.

In general I think mockery is more effective than outrage.

I love it: "Gay day at Chik-Fil-A" :D

(problem is, you're basically putting money into discriminating against yourself)

SI

Well certainly Mormon Gay Day where supporters of same sex marriage tithe the Mormon church would still work, right?

Just buy coffee or soda. The money they make won't cover their frustration.

Does being a douchebag to somebody really make them change their mind?

The local Chick-fil-A's are just franchises, I guess in theory you're hurting the corporation if you boycott it, but really you're just most directly hurting a small businessman and a lot of service industry employees. I guess the employees could go to some other fast food place if anyone managed to shut one down, but just on a hunch, I'm guessing most 60+ year old CEOs of major corporations are going to probably be anti-gay marriage on the whole as well.

This guy owns a Chick-fil-A in West Hollywood, I'm sure it'd be great for business if that place became some big gay hangout in protest.

Chick-fil-A store owners seek distance from gay marriage debate - latimes.com)

I wonder if Emanuel and Menino would stand by their principles if it was a Catholic church?

The Chick-Fil-A thing is is one of the dumbest controversies to pop up in some time. I get it if people want to talk about it and not eat there. But no politician should be blocking them from entering a city. It's the same kind of discrimination that they claim to be fighting against. Let them run their business and let people decide whether or not they want to go there. If they are discriminating and breaking laws in their business, that's another story.

I wonder what the line is between when people are willing to boycott a product. I personally wouldn't boycott Chick-Fil-A because I think it's a bit silly to go around picking and choosing who you want to do business with based on the political beliefs of top executives or major shareholders. There are likely a lot of shitty people with shitty beliefs running all sorts of companies.

This doesn't mean I'm opposed to boycotts. I do my best to avoid BP stations and did move my money away from Bank of America to USAA. But I do think it's tough to go around living your life only supporting those with your views on the world.

I don't really like this argument though. I mentioned above I don't buy into the boycott, but when you sign on to a franchise, you are using their brand for good and bad. It's unfortunate that they are collateral damage in this, but that's the risk they chose to take.

Plus it's not like people stop eating. The money will just go to another business in the area. Perhaps the guy who runs a McDonalds down the street.

Also my favorite part is the defense they give is that they operate on biblical principles yet sell bacon. Sounds more like biblical principles unless it makes a sandwich yummier.

I'm not really sure of Romney's stance in the ME and whether he is hawkish. Below is somewhat interesting but presume to be more politics than reality (e.g. vs we know when Obama says he will go into foreign soil to get OBL he will do it).

Romney would back Israeli strike against Iran, senior adviser says | Fox News

This led me to google the below on Jewish support which kinda surprised me at the margin that Obama has.

Poll: Romney’s support among Jewish voters slips ahead of Israel trip - The Hill's Ballot Box

I'm pretty sure they don't sacrifice bulls as penance, either. Hypocrites.

I like chicken biscuits too much to boycott, but I can see if you don't want the money you give them going toward anti-gay marriage lobbying. Granted, they probably only make a percentage of each franchise, but whatever. Everyone knows they are a highly religious unit, so I don't get the outrage. I think it's just that he was so insulting about what he said, that's probably some of it.

They also don't deny service to homosexuals. I think you are confusing ones thoughts/opinion vs active activism. The only activism I'm aware of that Chik-fil-A acts upon is that they close on Sunday.

I think the thing that has me upset about it, are people I know who are like "Oh, Chick-Fil-A, you are the greatest, and you must really be good, true Christians to come out and say this. Ohhhh, you are so much better than any other company out there because you hate the gays too."

That's what pisses me off about it.

The company has donated large sums of money to organizations opposed to gay marriage.

So? You donate large sums of money when you buy gas that ends up in the hands of governments that cut peoples heads off for being homosexual.

You said there was no activism, but there is.

I don't care where you choose to eat.