Right wing investigator who plotted against WaPo wrecks himself.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...2#post15453222

Even the conservatives mock him.
Basically, he sent a woman to the WaPo, who was supposed to falsely pretend being a victim of a Republican politician.
The goal was obviously to make WaPo post her story and then James O'Gaffe would publish an embarrassing video for the mainstream media outlets, exposing their communist bias.

The bait contradicted herself and maybe even boasted of her conspiracy online.
The journalists weren't fooled, but instead got sufficient evidence of her working for the notorious Project Veritas. It's a partial group, which plans to expose the lack of integrity of only anyone who dares to criticize the conservatives.

Now, I can understand going undercover to expose the nefarious nature of the system, but that's not O'Gaffe and his underlings did there, hence why he is being laughed at by Republicans and Democrats alike.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/28/medi...ing/index.html

My sides:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video...9-ca0619edfa05
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.4b4ddfef0aa0

Is the washington post usually so succeptable to bait that this moment of mild competence is topicworthy?

He's going to have a tough time cutting and pasting this into a story. He'll probably try anyway, and no doubt there will be plenty of morons who will take his crap at face value...again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Is the washington post usually so succeptable to bait that this moment of mild competence is topicworthy?

---

Actually, as a rule they are reasonably savvy. Like all of us, they can be led astray when their blinders are in place on an issue/theme (which is what the 'sting' was attempting to exploit). So can WaPo and other news outlets let their quietly held biases shade their telling of the news? Yes. Do they regularly let outsiders and amateurs fool them? Not likely.

Now, when one of their own plays them for fools from the inside, then it can get ugly. Cooke-ing up a Pulitzer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Is the washington post usually so succeptable to bait that this moment of mild competence is topicworthy?

---

Do you feel so threatened by the content that you need to distract from the scandal by shifting the focus to alleged incompetence of the true heroes of the story?

Is crandar so threatened by project veritas that he needs to create a thread that amplifies an attempt to make scandal an action that would be heroic if inept were they taken by a regulatory body?

Are you so threatened by the potential challenge to an ideological narrative that you need to further shift the focus to the alledged ill intent of the sole dissenting voice?

I suspect all three questions have a single answer that is sufficiently insultint, alienating and character assassinating, as has become the norm on this board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Do you feel so threatened by the content that you need to distract from the scandal by shifting the focus to alleged incompetence of the true heroes of the story?

---

naw brah it ain't like that

It's a common tactic used by sociopaths to explain away behaviors. "Yeah, but" is a crude tool, but effective because people are willing to buy into the logic. It's usually followed by casting oneself as the true victim in the situation, much like this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

...potential challenge to an ideological narrative that you need to further shift the focus to the alledged ill intent of the sole dissenting voice?

I suspect all three questions have a single answer that is sufficiently insultint, alienating and character assassinating, as has become the norm on this board.

---

"I was just trying to be helpful."

"You don't appreciate me enough."

"This is all a conspiracy."

It's really a fascinating character study worthy of an FBI profile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

I suspect all three questions have a single answer that is sufficiently insultint, alienating and character assassinating, as has become the norm on this board.

---

So you admit that your attempt of character assassination on the entire WaPo staff was a bad idea?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

So you admit that your attempt of character assassination on the entire WaPo staff was a bad idea?

---

Well, they are after all....you know....journalists

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Is crandar so threatened by project veritas that he needs to create a thread that amplifies an attempt to make scandal an action that would be heroic if inept were they taken by a regulatory body?

---

If a government body did the same thing, it would be a textbook example of entrapment and nobody would cheer them on, even if the plot worked. Because the perpetrators would walk free.

Journalists, left and right, have labeled what O'Keefe does for a living as unethical. And that's just the way he collects his facts - with the way he presents them he does not deserve to be called a journalist himself.

If you feel uncomfortable with the way we're slamming O'Keefe (and you clearly are) then maybe you should stop acting as an apologist for people like him.

Project Veritas are all hack-frauds, and not in an endearing way.

If you look at this http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/28/medi...ing/index.html <that, nothing is really said at all. Don't know the guy I never heard of him by the way

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

He's going to have a tough time cutting and pasting this into a story. He'll probably try anyway, and no doubt there will be plenty of morons who will take his crap at face value...again.

---

He already has. He posted a video of him asking questions to a Washington Post reporter and the reporter walking away. Ill try to find the video when I get home. What the full video shows is that the reporter had reached out to him for comments on the situation. Initially refusing, O'Keefe then had the reporter set up a meeting time with him, to presumably be asked questions. When that meeting time came around, he refused to answer any of the reporter's questions and instead asked the reporter some of his own questions. Seeing that this wasnt going to amount to anything, the reporter left. But from O'Keefe's video it looks like the WaPo reporter just fled. His group has a long history of this sort of thing though, so its really no surprise.

If anything this strengthens the claims of the actual accusers, as making sure a lead is telling the truth is basic journalistic integrity, which O'Keefe does not have.

That's O'Gaffe's doctored video:
https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/s...62597833744384

I had posted Washington Post's uncensored video in the OP, it's the last link.

To Greyblades: I'm just posting stories I find interesting and funny.
Contrary to O'Gaffe's obvious, thanks to his amateurism, agenda, I have no problem laughing at Hilary or alt-right investigators, whose competence doesn't match their malice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Well, they are after all....you know....journalists

---

That's like...you know...a respectable profession.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

That's like...you know...a respectable profession.

---

At times, I think "necessary" is a better word.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

That's like...you know...a respectable profession.

---

It's like one....vaguely.

But would I want my daughter to marry one? :inquisitive:

What bugs you about journalists?

It's hard to argue without any actual arguments.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/28/medi...ing/index.html < take this Hus, put a zero for everything that's said and try to make a calculation. I you do so you will find there isn't anything there

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/28/medi...ing/index.html < take this Hus, put a zero for everything that's said and try to make a calculation. I you do so you will find there isn't anything there

---

I get 463, you're doing it wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

What bugs you about journalists?

It's hard to argue without any actual arguments.

---

I'm an (American definition) right winger. With the exception of Fox news and the bloviaters of talk radio, the news media in my country is largely and endless low key persuasive effort favoring the intrusive government approach that I have disagreed with more or less my entire life. I am always a little skeptical where journalists are concerned.

I admit to playing it up a bit for the humor value.

FOX also is :daisy:, they frame things as they see fit as well, maybe even worse than CNN and the likes. Journalists are whorenanists no matter how you think of things

Humans don't look at data and come up with a conclusion. They have a conclusion and seek data to support it.

For those that thing the Mainstream Media is lying / eeeeeevil then this might even be evidence that they are trying to discredit the small heroes in some way.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I'm an (American definition) right winger. With the exception of Fox news and the bloviaters of talk radio, the news media in my country is largely and endless low key persuasive effort favoring the intrusive government approach that I have disagreed with more or less my entire life. I am always a little skeptical where journalists are concerned.

I admit to playing it up a bit for the humor value.

---

That does however not necessarily say anything about how professional they are. After all you're on the same side as Trump in this fight. Government intrustion seems like a weird word as well given that they don't want the government to tell people which toilet to use etc. In the end the left and right want about the same levels of government intrusion, just in different areas. Both Bush and Obama thought it would be fine for the US government to intrude in my life (by sucking up my online data) or the lives of Pakistanis (by droning terrorists in the vicinity) and so on. The US media seem quite divided on that. So for me they're all in a grey area anyway when it comes to government intrusion.

And where do you see the public ones? Here I find them to be among the most trustworthy ones given that they do not depend on corporate sponsors and aren't owned by billionaires. That's one of the most discrediting things about FoxNews anyway, the owner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

"I was just trying to be helpful."

"You don't appreciate me enough."

"This is all a conspiracy."

It's really a fascinating character study worthy of an FBI profile.

---

I prefer talking to Husar over you, at least he refrains from making outright attacks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

So you admit that your attempt of character assassination on the entire WaPo staff was a bad idea?

---

If you read between the lines you'd realize the insulting, alienating and character assassinating answer to all three insinuations I was referring to was a variation on "no". Your insinuation was a stupid, insulting and uncalled for as the two I made up as example, as well as the one crandar decided to make for real.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

If a government body did the same thing, it would be a textbook example of entrapment and nobody would cheer them on, even if the plot worked. Because the perpetrators would walk free.

---

Sir, You are wrong, and that is becaise you have not looked up how entrapment is determined:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wikipedia paraphrasing the university of minnesota

In the United States, two competing tests exist for determining whether entrapment has taken place, known as the "subjective" and "objective" tests.[15]

The "subjective" test looks at the defendant's state of mind; entrapment can be claimed if the defendant had no "predisposition" to commit the crime.
The "objective" test looks instead at the government's conduct; entrapment occurs when the actions of government officers would usually have caused a normally law-abiding person to commit a crime.

---

For it to be struck down it you would need to prove that the washington post was either not predisposed to do it or was being coerced. Neither would apply as actually being stupid enough to swallow such frankly amaturish bait would prove, making a government body carrying out such a ploy not guilty of entrapment but carrying out a sting operation, admittedly one the body would be reuctant to advertise upon completion.

Quote:

---

Journalists, left and right, have labeled what O'Keefe does for a living as unethical. And that's just the way he collects his facts - with the way he presents them he does not deserve to be called a journalist himself.

---

Left or right the journalistic profession is full of prats whose only achievement in thier sorry lives has turned being selective in who they call out for being unethical into a paycheck.

These prats incidentally are almost as numerous as those they are blind to.

Journalism is dead and it wasnt the internet that killed it.

Quote:

---

If you feel uncomfortable with the way we're slamming O'Keefe (and you clearly are) then maybe you should stop acting as an apologist for people like him.

---

You need not be an apologist to be uncomfortable to be witness to this thread's opening post anymore than you need to be a conservative to be uncomfortable witnessing Diane Abbot attempt to do math.

Ok, I must have missed something. When did I make any insinuation, stupid, insulting, self-contradictory or brilliant?

Just for the record, I have already explained what motivated me to daringly press the "Post a New Thread" button:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crandar

That's O'Gaffe's doctored video:
https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/s...62597833744384

I had posted Washington Post's uncensored video in the OP, it's the last link.

To Greyblades: I'm just posting stories I find interesting and funny.
Contrary to O'Gaffe's obvious, thanks to his amateurism, agenda, I have no problem laughing at Hilary or alt-right investigators, whose competence doesn't match their malice.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

If you read between the lines you'd realize the insulting, alienating and character assassinating answer to all three insinuations I was referring to was a variation on "no". Your insinuation was a stupid, insulting and uncalled for as the two I made up as example, as well as the one crandar decided to make for real.

---

I wasn't the one who called the WaPo staff "mildly competent" in an attempt to discredit the entire topic without actually commenting on the stupidity attempted. I also wasn't the one who rated them such and then pretended not to have an opinion on their competence. The NYT and the WaPo are often cited by Trump and friends as examples of "fake news". Surely as someone who still expected Trump to do great things last time you posted on the topic, you would have an opinion on the WaPo. Or should I take your post as an admittance of complete ignorance on politics? So I'm quite sure what is stupid, ignorant or uncalled for here. Take your first reply to the topic for starters. If you really didn't care about it you could have stayed out of it as I did until I saw your reply...

A governmental analogue to James O'Keefe could be a failed clerical worker attempting to carry out a massacre in order to prove that mass killings are secretly false-flag attacks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

That does however not necessarily say anything about how professional they are. After all you're on the same side as Trump in this fight. Government intrustion seems like a weird word as well given that they don't want the government to tell people which toilet to use etc. In the end the left and right want about the same levels of government intrusion, just in different areas. Both Bush and Obama thought it would be fine for the US government to intrude in my life (by sucking up my online data) or the lives of Pakistanis (by droning terrorists in the vicinity) and so on. The US media seem quite divided on that. So for me they're all in a grey area anyway when it comes to government intrusion.

And where do you see the public ones? Here I find them to be among the most trustworthy ones given that they do not depend on corporate sponsors and aren't owned by billionaires. That's one of the most discrediting things about FoxNews anyway, the owner.

---

Okay, apparently I wasn't clear in my post. I was NOT saying that Fox or the Right Wing Talk Radio showmeisters were any better or any more professional than their more numerous slanted left mainstream 'opposition.' A quick look at the FOX track record shows them to be the reverse of the coin, not actually any better.

And I am one of the more libertarian GOP types. I do not think the federal government should be the agent for enforcing Protestant Baptist morality any more than I think it should be enforcing property redistribution. I acknowledge that all too many of the USA's right wing would be happy to let the government accrue even more power as long as it was using that power for an agenda they favored. I think that just as bogus as a burgeoning left wing government.

So, just because I decry one side, do not assume that I take the simplistic turn favored by the current administration and automatically support the other in some kind of Pavlovian binary choice set.

I am fairly happy calling for a pox on both their houses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

And I am one of the more libertarian GOP types. I do not think the federal government should be the agent for enforcing Protestant Baptist morality any more than I think it should be enforcing property redistribution. I acknowledge that all too many of the USA's right wing would be happy to let the government accrue even more power as long as it was using that power for an agenda they favored. I think that just as bogus as a burgeoning left wing government.

---

While that sounds "fair" at first, and I'm unsure about your exact position, I often find such a position to be full of holes and double standards as well. Some examples:

1. If it's okay for someone to use inherited money to amass even more money, even by ruining other peoples' lives, should it not be okay to do the same with an inherited gun? Money is no more inherently moral than a gun and neither is trade inherently more moral than violence. If you want the invisible hand to guide the employment market, the food market, the market for drinking water and so on, why not the market for violence and death? After all, the market knows best in everything, right? Let survival become a function of merit again.

2. When someone from a think tank says unions are ruining the economy it's hilarious. IMO it's the absolute height of a double standard that poor people shouldn't be allowed to organize and pool their resources in order to further their interests while rich people have employers' associations, think tanks and "foundations" (potentially also fraternities and secret societies etc.) where they pool their resources to further their own interests... What is your position on that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

While that sounds "fair" at first, and I'm unsure about your exact position, I often find such a position to be full of holes and double standards as well. Some examples:

1. If it's okay for someone to use inherited money to amass even more money, even by ruining other peoples' lives, should it not be okay to do the same with an inherited gun? Money is no more inherently moral than a gun and neither is trade inherently more moral than violence. If you want the invisible hand to guide the employment market, the food market, the market for drinking water and so on, why not the market for violence and death? After all, the market knows best in everything, right? Let survival become a function of merit again.

2. When someone from a think tank says unions are ruining the economy it's hilarious. IMO it's the absolute height of a double standard that poor people shouldn't be allowed to organize and pool their resources in order to further their interests while rich people have employers' associations, think tanks and "foundations" (potentially also fraternities and secret societies etc.) where they pool their resources to further their own interests... What is your position on that?

---

1. I have stated elsewhere that I acknowledge the pitfalls of the totally unregulated free market. An "Enron executive," however infrequently they crop up, can do great harm and caveat emptor fails in the face of out-and-out fraud. Some regulation for basic safety must be had (Clean air, water, food) and government needs to be death on fraud in all forms. I'd want these regulations put in place and enforced at the lowest practicable level of governance.

1b. Your linkage of money and guns doesn't quite connect smoothly. Yes both are tools, but their utility as tools is in completely different venues of action. I agree that their is no inherently more moral tool than any other. It is the uses to which a tool is put that defines the morality of the tool user.

1c. I do not believe that inherited money is more prone to fraudulent use than earned money. Fraudulent schemes etc. do need to be dealt with by government, and probably with more vigor than they currently are.

2. I have nothing against laborers, professionals, or whoever organizing. Efforts to violently or fraudulently suppress an effort to organize should be dealt with as the crimes they are.

2a. I loathe unions in my country because they are still trying to play the game with their 1950s playbook of attitudes and tactics and they blithely ignore the realities of the modern economy.

2b. Think tanks, professional associations, and the like are a better model for the modern union than the one they are using. Because they haven't adapted to the new conditions, unions have been largely irrelevant in this country (except as a Democrat party campaign labor pool and funding source) since Reagan broke PATCO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I'd want these regulations put in place and enforced at the lowest practicable level of governance.

---

Not possible.