• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

NPR vs O'Keefe

Don't know who O'Keefe or Garfield are (I assume one's not a cartoon cat) but the O'Keefe bloke reads like a troll on a forum!
 
O'Keefe would be the individual whose heavily edited video footage has resulted in several media controversies. Examples of his work include the pimp-ACORN thing as well as the media stunt which resulted in this thread. Several notable posters on these boards are, I believe, particular fans of his work :D
 
BOB GARFIELD: Who are your heroes?

JAMES O'KEEFE: G.K. Chesterton, underage prostitutes, Attorney General Gerry Brown and hyperbole and obfuscation.

BOB GARFIELD: No surprises there. But who are your enemies?

JAMES O'KEEFE: I think that’s something for analysts and commentators and reporters and, and the audience to glean for theirselves.

BOB GARFIELD: Okay, but I'm guessing it’s - Buffy the Vampire Slayer, her watcher, Rupert Giles and the whole Watchers Council. Come on. Am I right?

JAMES O'KEEFE: That's right, except for one.

BOB GARFIELD: So then the one you actually don't wish to see destroyed is who, Giles?

[MUSIC UP AND UNDER]

JAMES O'KEEFE: Yes, that’s right. It’s Giles.
Click to expand...

Deepatrax is O'Keefe, and I am Bob Garfield. You heard it here first.
 
"That's right, it's Giles."

Priceless.

EDIT: Damnit, I Am The Scum posted it up while I was still reading.
 
Last edited:
Shadowdweller said:
O'Keefe would be the individual whose heavily edited video footage has resulted in several media controversies. Examples of his work include the pimp-ACORN thing as well as the media stunt which resulted in this thread.
Click to expand...

I still think that the whole Acorn thing never actually happened, but was an elaborate hoax using mirrors, David Copperfield, and orchestrated by Andy Kaufman. There is no way anyone with functioning eyesight would believe this guy is a pimp.
 
Edited by Darat: 
Bickering quote & reply deleted.


Shadowdweller said:
Heard a great interview on NPR the other evening between Bob Garfield, cohost of the news program "On the Media," and conservative smear-artist James O'Keefe. O'Keefe attempts to justify outright fabrication:

http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2011/03/18/05
Click to expand...

Actually, that's a rather interesting transcript (not that it says what you say it says, of course, but you give away your bias, intent and motives in describing O'Keefe as "conservative smear-artist, don't you....).

O'Keefe would be right at home on this forum. He uses correct technical language in the context of the discussion to describe the logical fallacies of his opponent.

As such, O'Keefe moves the argument from innuendo and spin into actual facts (also noting that he originally placed the FULL VIDEO for public access as well as the short clips).

Now we see, on a forum at least superficially noted as one with pretenses of critical and logical thinking, a glossing over of the logical arguments of the discussion in favor of the bias and spin.

Cheers!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mhaze said:
O'Keefe would be right at home on this forum. He uses correct technical language in the context of the discussion to describe the logical fallacies of his opponent.
Click to expand...

Please provide one example.

I'll grant you that he uses logical language, but he doesn't do so accurately. It probably appears to be a fair analysis to those who don't know anything about logic.
 
tyr_13 said:
Wait, are you advocating violence or predicting violence?

O'Keefe might be a horrible troll, but that doesn't justify physical violence.
Click to expand...
If a victim identifies the sorry little punk, whatever forece is needed to secure his equipment on location until law enforcement agents can arrive is justified. If he gets his crooked beak shoved back the other way in the process it would hardly be a tort.
 
leftysergeant said:
If a victim identifies the sorry little punk, whatever forece is needed to secure his equipment on location until law enforcement agents can arrive is justified. If he gets his crooked beak shoved back the other way in the process it would hardly be a tort.
Click to expand...

A victim of what? And no, I'm pretty sure that would be a tort, especially since you're effectively fantasizing about it in public with this post.

Seriously. O'Keefe is a tool, that's fine, but making posts like this just validates support for him and his tactics from others. What benefit is gained by making arguments like this, if you even want to call them arguments?
 
A Laughing Baby said:
A victim of what? And no, I'm pretty sure that would be a tort, especially since you're effectively fantasizing about it in public with this post.
Click to expand...

No. O'Keefe is a known criminal and siezing his property that he is using as an impliment of a crime on your premises is perfectly legal. IU know that in most states, if a bar ternder or store clerk gets his hands on an altered driver's license, he is in no way obliged to hand it back to the kid. If somebody comes into your store, whips out a gun and demands money, most states will not say much about it if your drew your own weapon and blew his head off.

O'Keefe is deliberately causing people pain, so he would have no comeback if he suffered some in the process.
 
leftysergeant said:
No. O'Keefe is a known criminal and siezing his property that he is using as an impliment of a crime on your premises is perfectly legal. IU know that in most states, if a bar ternder or store clerk gets his hands on an altered driver's license, he is in no way obliged to hand it back to the kid. If somebody comes into your store, whips out a gun and demands money, most states will not say much about it if your drew your own weapon and blew his head off.

O'Keefe is deliberately causing people pain, so he would have no comeback if he suffered some in the process.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that a jury wouldn't take "he embarrassed me by altering footage of me and potentially caused me to lose my job" as any sort of justification for beating up a guy. You're really stretching reality and terminology here to justify your fantasy of beating up the guy, regardless of his jerk status.
 
leftysergeant said:
Just saying that if somebody takes his camera away, he had best not resist. He is a known criminal.
Click to expand...

And I'm saying that if someone tries to take his camera away, they'd better have a damned good legal justification for doing so other than "he's a big meany and a convicted criminal" unless they want to get slapped with a lawsuit or worse, depending on their conduct.
 
A Laughing Baby said:
And I'm saying that if someone tries to take his camera away, they'd better have a damned good legal justification for doing so other than "he's a big meany and a convicted criminal" unless they want to get slapped with a lawsuit or worse, depending on their conduct.
Click to expand...

I agree. Being a posterior sphincter is no reason to take away his ability to say what he wants.

Being a posterior sphincter is every reason for people to stop treating him like he has any credibility.
 
leftysergeant said:
Just saying that if somebody takes his camera away, he had best not resist. He is a known criminal.
Click to expand...

As much as an advocate you have been for liberal politics, I find your stance on criminal justice to be surprisingly right-leaning. However, that's not entirely accurate, as I don't think it's fair to describe vigilante justice as a left or right issue.

You should probably relax.
 
A Laughing Baby said:
And I'm saying that if someone tries to take his camera away, they'd better have a damned good legal justification for doing so other than "he's a big meany and a convicted criminal" unless they want to get slapped with a lawsuit or worse, depending on their conduct.
Click to expand...
If he has it in your place of business and you know that he does not like what you do, you have reasonable cause to believe that it is being used for unlawful purposes and contains evidence of his unlawful activity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom