Patterico's Pontifications

12/29/2009

L.A. Times Columnist Fabricates Quote, Slandering Anti-ACORN Activist

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 6:34 pm

I knew he’d done it. All I had to do was prove it. Now I can.

Remember James Rainey? He’s the hapless L.A. Times columnist who told his readers that an L.A. ACORN worker had refused to help Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe with an underage prostitution ring. Trouble is, Rainey never contacted Giles or O’Keefe to verify the story. And when we learned that the ACORN worker had been eager to help Giles and O’Keefe, Rainey got enough egg on his face to make omelettes for a platoon of haughty Frenchmen.

Stung to the quick, Rainey wrote an ass-covering column that minimized his error, and said the following about O’Keefe:

So what sort of creature does this make O’Keefe? I don’t disagree with his observation in a previous interview with The Times that he follows the mold of filmmaker Michael Moore, using confrontation to get at his version of the truth.

O’Keefe adamantly denied this quote to me, calling it a “complete fabrication.” He told me that it was possible that he had mentioned Michael Moore in an interview with an L.A. Times reporter, But O’Keefe strongly denied telling anyone that he “follow[ed] the mold” of Moore, or that he “us[ed] confrontation to get at his version of the truth.” O’Keefe told me that he believed this alleged quote bordered on defamation, as Moore uses deceptive editing techniques to push his agenda, while O’Keefe does not.

I tracked down the original quote — and it appears James Rainey put a few words in James O’Keefe’s mouth. Here is what O’Keefe actually said, according to reporter Robin Abcarian:

I am in NY and trying to do these videos full time. A lot of them are undercover. Veritas Visuals, I can show you some links, did some investigation for right.org, a parody up on YouTube. I want to be the conservative version of Michael Moore and Jon Stewart and Jackass and Trigger Happy TV. Combine those elements to promote the conservative agenda thru those means.

Rainey’s version unfairly rewrites the actual quote. O’Keefe never actually said that he “follows the mold” of Michael Moore to “us[e] confrontation to get at his version of the truth.” Rainey made it sound like O’Keefe admitted seeking something less than the full truth. But O’Keefe told me that he seeks the full truth and resents Rainey’s false implication that he admitted otherwise.

I asked O’Keefe why he mentioned Michael Moore and the others. He explained:

Michael Moore’s documentary films do a good job of interlacing music and b-roll in between interviews to tell a vivid story. Jon Stewart’s correspondents ask facetious or outrageous questions of interviewees. Jackass uses the shock factor, and Trigger Happy TV’s short videos are viral and entertaining.

My investigative videos do not “follow the mold” of Michael Moore’s distortions any more than they “follow the mold” of Jackass’s throwing oneself down stairs in a shopping cart. I meant to admire some of the qualities — cinematography and shock value, respectively — of each.

Rainey’s quote is not a fair paraphrase of O’Keefe’s words. It’s not what O’Keefe said, and it’s not what he meant. It’s a fabrication, pure and simple.

I have been a recent victim of a dishonest person who tried to put words in my mouth. It’s infuriating and wrong. When it happens to others, I will fight on their behalf.

James Rainey put words in James O’Keefe’s mouth. He owes James O’Keefe a correction.

66 Responses to “L.A. Times Columnist Fabricates Quote, Slandering Anti-ACORN Activist”

  1. GET SOME!

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  2. Nice job, Patterico. But Teh Narrative will shortly take over. The Flexible Partisan Yardstick. Still, I’m glad you didn’t just let Rainey’s lies…well, lie.

    Eric Blair (fe64d8)

  3. He owes James O’Keefe a correction.

    And a personal apology.

    aunursa (1ca021)

  4. Doubt you or O’Keefe will get much relief from the Times ‘omsbudsman’. Rainey is a partisan hack, now, as it was and will be–just a hack.

    Mike Myers (3c9845)

  5. Will the Columbia Journalism Review weigh in on this like they selectively weighed in on my Hannity appearance to claim I blackmailed the Attorney General? We’re waiting oracles of journalism to tell us the degree to which we can take liberties with people’s quotes. Hubris isn’t a strong enough word for these arrogant elitist lefties.

    Andrew Breitbart (2738a2)

  6. P: I don’t know the Times columnnist, never heard of O’Keefe (by name) until this blog and don’t care about ACORN.

    But it strikes me that you’re parsing a bit and maybe being a little too lawyer-ly, which I guess one might expect of a lawyer.

    I don’t think the average person sees much distinction between

    follows the mold of filmmaker Michael Moore

    and

    I want to be the conservative version of Michael Moore

    In fact, one could argue O’Keefe’s statement suggests an even stronger connection, since being someone goes beyond following in that person’s mold.

    Myron (6a93dd)

  7. Rainey is the Times twerp who said, “what possible motive would the East Anglia people have for faking the data ?” How about $26 million in grants, big guy ?

    No conflict there, is there ?

    Mike K (2cf494)

  8. Myron, you COMPLETELY MISSED the point, missing completely the part that was paraphrased, didn’t you?

    You see, when I read your note, I had to go back to see if “I” missed the point of the blog, the point about the quote. And, I realized that I didn’t, but that you did….

    Please go back and read the blog post again, and then come back and defend your point; I don’t think you can, but I’ll await your response.

    Thanks….

    reff (176333)

  9. Moron, you don’t see much, do you ? And besides, the average person has you beat by about 20 IQ points.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  10. Except that O’Keefe did not say that he wanted to be the conservative version of Michael Moore, he said he wanted to take what he considered to be things Michael Moore does well, and Jon Stewart, and things Jackass did well, and Trigger Happy TV, and undoubtedly dozens of other influences he didn’t mention, and combine the aspects of those peoples’ work that he admires as part of his effort to create his own unique media identity. He even gave an example of what he meant in regards to Michael Moore.

    Yes, the “average person” wouldn’t make much distinction if they only had those two short lines to base their judgment on. But that isn’t the whole story, which is the point. People like Rainey chop up quotes and switch them around and Dowdify them and leave half of them out to make you think what they want you to think, not what you would be thinking if they’d provided you with all the information in a fair manner.

    chaos (9c54c6)

  11. P: I don’t know the Times columnnist, never heard of O’Keefe (by name) until this blog and don’t care about ACORN.

    But it strikes me that you’re parsing a bit and maybe being a little too lawyer-ly, which I guess one might expect of a lawyer.

    Myron,

    I get that you’re a leftist who knows nothing about the ACORN scandal. But why should we care that you can’t understand why O’Keefe doesn’t want words put in his mouth? Address the “his version of the truth” smear please.

    Patterico (1efb3c)

  12. O’Keefe and others know how Moore has distorted the truth on film (as in Roger and Me) but maybe Rainey doesn’t know that. Maybe Rainey doesn’t have a clue about that at all.

    Official Internet Data Office (7735a9)

  13. Chaos: Except that O’Keefe did not say that he wanted to be the conservative version of Michael Moore,

    O’Keefe: I want to be the conservative version of Michael Moore

    Myron: ????

    Myron (6a93dd)

  14. –don’t care about ACORN

    Just like the Weimar Germans didn’t care about the “Brownshirts” – they were just a bunch of low lifes and perverts.

    red (7b5f67)

  15. Patterico:

    “..I get that you’re a leftist who knows nothing about the ACORN scandal…”

    Oh, I think our resident Elder Statesman of Intellectualism knows quite a bit about ACORN. He just likes playing games. Much like Mr. Norman.

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  16. By the way, Mr. Breitbart: keep up the good work. The one thing that the Left cannot abide is being laughed at. Keep showing them for what they are.

    Eric Blair (ddbceb)

  17. Myron: expert Dowdifier.

    Patterico (1efb3c)

  18. Why does the LA Times have so many people what lie? That doesn’t just happen I don’t think.

    happyfeet (e9e587)

  19. One hour Normanizing. You don’t want to give bitter Ms. Dowd any credit.

    But they do have their crushes, it seems.

    Eric Blair (fe64d8)

  20. Moron does not know what the conjunction “and” and the word “combine” mean.

    nk (df76d4)

  21. Good job, Patterico. It’s not easy to get results when people are trying their best to sweep the story under the rug.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  22. P: OK, “rightist” or “right-winger” if we’re throwing out epithets. I’ll only trade such with you, b/c it’s your blog and you set the parameters.

    “His version of the truth” is not a smear. Everyone’s opinion is their version of the truth. Moore has his; O’Keefe has his.

    For instance, you say that the columnist misrepresented this fellow, O’Keefe. You think that’s true. I don’t.

    But really, I think this whole topic is frankly, rather slight, with all that’s going on. I personally wish ACORN would fold so as to remove it as a topic of conservative obsession. It’s boring and it takes up a lot of blog-space.

    The three comments from me are two more than this subject merits.

    So for this final comment, I’ll say this:

    I have been in journalism for some years, as opposed to law or blogging (or commenting on blogs). I can say with a high degree of certitude that this situation will neither get a correction from the newspaper, nor does it merit one.

    I will read your response, P., but beyond that I’ll say peace for the night.

    Myron (6a93dd)

  23. It does seem that the L.A. Times has a stable
    full of reporters who are lost on the concept
    of fair and accurate reporting.

    tino manus (996c34)

  24. It does seem that the L.A. Times has a stable
    full of reporters who are lost on the concept
    of fair and accurate reporting.

    tino manus (996c34)

  25. Sorry, but I don’t have a huge problem with Rainey’s phrasing. Remember, he did not put O’Keefe’s words in quotes. And he did not conduct the interview himself, but got the information second hand. Based on his colleague’s notes, it would have been better for Rainey to say, instead:

    O’Keefe has said that one of his inspirations is filmmaker Michael Moore, who uses confrontation to get at the truth.

    The problem is that Rainey is using the odd phrase “version of the truth” as the equivalent of “the truth,” and it doesn’t occur to him, I think, that in Moore’s case there has been a big difference.

    Official Internet Data Office (7735a9)

  26. Myron,

    Rainey said:

    So what sort of creature does this make O’Keefe? I don’t disagree with his observation in a previous interview with The Times that he follows the mold of filmmaker Michael Moore, using confrontation to get at his version of the truth.

    The bolded portion “his observation” makes this tantamount to a quote so if Rainey is going to use it, he needs to use it accurately. Rainey did more than compare O’Keefe to Moore, he said that O’Keefe said he “follows the mold of filmmaker Michael Moore, using confrontation to get at his version of the truth.” Is that what O’Keefe said? No.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  27. Actually, Myron is a more intellectual version of Mr.Norman. Without the profanity and the flamingoes. But it remains more game-playing.

    Eric Blair (c4dd89)

  28. Please, lighten up Francis. Rainey’s reporting of what O’Keefe said to Abcarian is not in quotation marks. In my view, the phrase “version of the truth” is not elegant, but then, to liberals everything is relative, including the truth.

    Official Internet Data Office (7735a9)

  29. I have been in journalism for some years

    As the “before” picture. I did a little research myself, recently, on journalists.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  30. That the sophist Myron works in journalism is simply a SHOCKA. That Rainey is dishonest is a given, kind of like Norman liking to associate with people who like to bugger children.

    JD (a030d3)

  31. “I have been in journalism for some years”

    Hello, dishonest hack and apologist for liars. Pleased to meet you.

    pst314 (dbf8fd)

  32. Don’t care about ACORN?

    Don’t care about revelations of deep corruption and gross violations of the law by an organization getting millions of dollars from the government? Not even repeated offers to assist in trafficking children for prostitution? Yup, you’re a sophisticated modern journalist alright.

    “You cannot hope to bend or twist,
    Thank God, the modern journalist.
    But seeing what unbribed he’ll do,
    There really is no reason to.”

    pst314 (dbf8fd)

  33. It’s hard to imagine many other big-city newspapers that would even hire a guy like Rainey. He owes his job to the perfect storm the LA Times is experiencing, a confluence of loony leftist management, plummeting readership, and a fiscal crisis that has forced out higher priced, experienced journalists in favor of callow dopes like Rainey. What he probably does not realize is that he has taken his reputation, such as it is, and torched it with the O’Keefe business. Rainey’s byline now carries a stench he will not soon lose.

    Kevin Stafford (abdb87)

  34. Will the Columbia Journalism Review weigh in on this like they selectively weighed in on my Hannity appearance to claim I blackmailed the Attorney General?

    I’m sure CJR Chairman Navasky will give you an absolutely impartial and fair hearing.
    /sarc.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  35. JD – Does delivering papers qualify as being in journalism? We don’t know if Myron reads what he delivers, do we?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  36. Isn’t CJR one of those leftists organizations that hides behind a veneer of objectivity?

    JD (8f45a7)

  37. I wonder if this will cause Rainey any harm with the LA Times editors, themselves mostly leftists. If they condemn Rainey’s garbled and biased paraphrase, they open themselves up to similar scrutiny.

    Much safer to sweep this under the rug and continue coddling their paleolib base with comforting lies.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  38. Delivering???
    Hell, he probably sweeps out a magazine stand.

    AD - RtR/OS! (bc0d93)

  39. Myron said:

    I can say with a high degree of certitude that this situation will neither get a correction from the newspaper, nor does it merit one.

    I can, without a doubt, completely agree with Myron on this point — at least the part before the comma.

    As to the rest of his comment, I will plagiarize the good professor from Tennessee: Heh.

    Ag80 (525921)

  40. Rainey’s sentence there is not that garbled a paraphrase and not that biased. Bob Woodward, who is a deity to these Los Angeles Times reporters, has referred to his own reporting as “the best available version of the truth.” Not that it really was, but these people do use the phrase “version of the truth,” and probably think it’s chic when they do.

    Official Internet Data Office (7735a9)

  41. Isn’t CJR one of those leftists organizations that hides behind a veneer of objectivity?

    Yes, a very thin veneer.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  42. I have been in journalism for some years.

    Comment by Myron — 12/29/2009 @ 7:44 pm

    Well friends, we now know exactly from what disposition Myron is commenting on this blog. It sure explains a lot.

    JVW (0fe413)

  43. I think these types get a kick out of being naughty and rakish by lying and making shit up. They get that little thrill out of being shitty because it helps them feel safe as their lives are pretty shitty.

    I mean, they just a town gossips when it comes down to it, where is the honor or respect in that?

    Rev. Dr. E. Buzz Miller (72836b)

  44. How much anyone want to bet “moron” “works” for some leftist rag that could make a profit no matter who the libel?

    I am beinning to think 90% of journalists need to be pilloried in the “town square” and allowed to be beaten and humiliated by the public.

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  45. All: I do want to partly back-track on one thing, in saying that P. was making a “lawyer-ly” argument. While I was referring to his extreme, head-of-a-pin parsing, which I stand by, his argument is in fact, legally, on even shakier ground.

    Let’s start with the top. “Libel” is written defamation, not “slander,” which is spoken defamation. I think he should know this, considering his profession, even though it’s not his area of expertise (clearly).

    Second, O’Keefe would have to prove material harm. I doubt many people would see it as harm that a writer says O’Keefe follows in the mold of a person O’Keefe himself said he is the conservative version of. That the person he’s compared to is an Oscar-winning director who is respected in many circles outside the right-wing echo chamber undermines the “harm” argument even further.

    Third, O’Keefe, being a public figure, would also have to show malicious intent, a standard this column does not even come close to meeting. Among other things, Rainey could merely argue O.I.D.O.’s point in comment No. 25., i.e., that the relevant sentence was merely in-artful phrasing, in an attempt to capture the spirit of O’Keefe’s remarks.

    OK. I’m stepping down from the lectern.

    Now, that makes THREE comments more than this thread merits. I guess I’m feeling generous during the holidays. :)

    Myron (6a93dd)

  46. You do know, Moron, that you have definitely crossed the boundaries with this last comment of yours. You have been around long enough to know the rules around here, but you think you’re “special” in that you don’t have to follow the rules, don’t you? Good luck with that.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  47. Talk about “head-of-a-pin parsing”.

    Patterico was referring to slander not in a legal sense, but in the sense that Rainey had made a false statement about O’Keefe.

    Some chump (7d157e)

  48. Cool, Andrew’s here! So, maybe he and Patterico and O’Keefe can address the discovery by the former Massachusetts AG that they deceptively edited the tapes? linky for you

    From screaming lib Joe Conason (hurry, kill all the messengers!)

    What Harshbarger discovered, as his report’s Appendix D reveals, is that much of what appeared on Fox News Channel and in other media outlets, let alone on right-wing Web sites, was not what had actually occurred in the ACORN offices — and that exculpatory material was edited out of the tapes.

    In San Diego, for example, the ACORN employee shown on the tapes is someone whose primary language is Spanish, not English. The report notes that “in the released video, his participation amounts mostly to nodding or saying ‘OK.’ It is difficult to determine what this employee is responding to because the videographers’ statements are obscured by a voiceover inserted later.”

    After O’Keefe and Giles left the San Diego office, that same employee called a cousin who worked in a local police department “to ask him general advice regarding information he had received about possible human smuggling” — a reference to O’Keefe’s claim that he was bringing in young girls from El Salvador to work as prostitutes. The police report concerning that call shows that officers followed up later, only to be informed by the ACORN employee that the incident was a “ruse.”

    In Philadelphia, O’Keefe’s suspicious behavior likewise alerted the ACORN staff that something was amiss, and the police were informed there as well. No video of the visit to the Philly office was ever released by O’Keefe and Breitbart, although Harshbarger notes that “some of the released videos contain scenes of the sign of the Philadelphia ACORN office and shots of Philadelphia’s head organizer with no audio.”

    Wow, who ever suspected we were being told the whole truth by the kind of people who hate a poorly run organization famous for registering poor people to vote?

    Oh, yeah, me. Oh, and Mr. Rainey should explain where the quote came from, so his larger journalism on the subject can’t be ignored by the “forest for trees” crowd.

    timb (a668e0)

  49. “In San Diego, for example, the ACORN employee shown on the tapes is someone whose primary language is Spanish, not English. The report notes that “in the released video, his participation amounts mostly to nodding or saying ‘OK.’”

    English as a second language may be the truth, Timb, but the ACORN employee had no problem asking Hannah how much she charged. Doesn’t sound like he had a problem with English after all.

    PatAZ (9d1bb3)


  50. the discovery by the former Massachusetts AG

    . . .whose name is Scott Harshbarger, and according to the link, he didn’t do the research while Attorney General, as you lamely imply, but co-authored a paper which was at the behest of ACORN. I assume he was paid by ACORN, too, because the paper says he was “retained,” and Harshbarger is a lawyer. (If you can link to a cancelled check, that would clear things up. Thanks!)

    the released videos contain scenes of the sign of the Philadelphia ACORN office

    But this is something that’s not obvious nor a problem except to a screaming moonbat looking for slight discrepancies. Using a picture just as an illustration in this manner is called “an exterior” in Hollywood, and it’s done all day long. When O’Keefe and Giles found no ACORN wrongdoing in Philadelphia, they did not report that there was any ACORN wrongdoing in Philadelphia. How about that!

    only to be informed by the ACORN employee

    . . .whose version of the truth is not necessarily to be accepted as unbiased reporting.

    Official Internet Data Office (7735a9)

  51. from page 12 of dimb’s linky:

    Hence, all our knowledge about
    the videos is largely circumstantial and secondhand.

    Bullshit from a bought bullshitter.

    Matador (176445)

  52. I am not a journalist. I was, however, a lawyer. I do not think either fact contributes to the issue of Rainey’s characterization of O’Keefe’s observation of his style.

    I was once interviewed by a big market network affiliate in my capacity as a government attorney. This interview was filmed in my office and took over an hour. The issue was not a lead story item, but one with continuing public interest. Not one minute aired. Why? I was informed by the journalist conducting it (immediately after it was over) that my answers to her questions were too “lawyer-ly.” Was I evasive? Was I too brief? No. I was informed that the interview was over because I was too careful with the choice of my words. I asked for clarification and was literally told that this interview was scheduled as a POV piece, not an “investigative” piece, and I had failed to speak loosely enough for them to acquire any sound bites in support of their perspective. She even laughed and pointed out the few times in the interview that she “almost got me to say” something useful. I pointed out that the statement she was seeking wouldn’t have been true. Her response: “It wouldn’t have been your version of the truth.”

    I don’t know what “journalists” or “lawyers” in general think. I only know that there are no “versions of the truth.” There is only the truth and opinions that may or may not reflect truth. If someone printed my “observation” regarding how I arrive at my “version” of the truth I would consider myself grossly misquoted – with or without quotation marks.

    JDBlackaby (1309cf)

  53. I only know that there are no “versions of the truth.” There is only the truth and opinions that may or may not reflect truth.

    If only everyone knew (or admitted, since some refuse to accept) this one simple fact, the world would be an exponentially better place. Just because we might not be able to know (or accept) the truth at a given time, doesn’t mean it isn’t there, and all the time.

    no one you know (196ed7)

  54. Now, that makes THREE comments more than this thread merits. I guess I’m feeling generous during the holidays. :)

    Comment by Myron — 12/30/2009 @ 7:18 am

    and, in other news, we have a swine, casting fake pearls… film @ 11

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  55. I received an email from LAT Readers’ Representative Jamie Gold thanking me for providing some detail around their lack of correcting the slander against O’Keefe and I responded that I was only too happy to help them realize a need to post a correction and expressed my hope of seeing some improved and ethical behavior exhibited by Rainey.

    GeneralMalaise (68a574)

  56. timb,

    Your comment is horseshit.

    Breitbart did release a Philly tape that showed the ACORN lady to be a liar. They didn’t release the audio of her because of thuggish threats to prosecute them. They invited the ACORN worker there to give them her permission to release her audio and she has declined.

    Your buddy Juan Carlos was able to say “I have a lot of contacts in Tijuana.”

    You cite a report from someone you call “the former Massachusetts AG.” What you fail to note is that the report is by someone who is NOW a consultant who did the report for ACORN and was paid by ACORN.

    Total horseshit.

    Patterico (231873)

  57. SHOCKA

    JD (355e34)

  58. [...] But it didn’t end there. Rainey then wrote an ass-covering column that minimized his error — and which included a purported quote from O’Keefe. After I investigated the source of the quote, it turned out to be largely fabricated. [...]

    Patterico's Pontifications » Patterico’s Los Angeles Dog Trainer Year in Review 2009 (e4ab32)

  59. I love it when Patterico gets all emotionally involved.

    ACORN hired a commission to examine the scandal and suggest reforms: shocking. No one ever does that!

    In its 40+ page report, which you apparently didn’t have time to read, the law firm auditing ACORN criticized its poor leadership, its training program, and its actions in hiding embezzlement. They also reviewed the transcripts and released videos to determine what sort of actions ACORN should take in case the claims of O’Keefe and Giles were true (which, they found, some of them were).

    In doing so, they note Mr. Breitbart has yet to release the unedited video, so I’m unsure what you would have them examine, since the videos, like all videos, are edited. And, they noted the transcripts diverged from the video in some tapes. I’m sure that’s an honest mistake.

    But, until you read the pdf, I find your emotional, knee-jerk defense of your friend less persuasive than an audit of ACORN by a consultant.

    ZOMG, who has ever heard of using independent consultant in business or government!?!?! Imagine too, that they wish to be paid!

    You remember the IG y’all thought was fired by Obama and all? See, he was an actual employee of the government, but you believed his story. Guess believing criticism has much less to do with methodology than with the perceived partisan bias that results from the criticism.

    Oh, and jd, you’re too stupid for this discussion. It involves more than reading a Goldstein post and fellating Goildstein while attacking “trolls” with “wit.” In other words, piss off.

    timb (449046)

  60. the discovery by the former Massachusetts AG

    . . .whose name is Scott Harshbarger, and according to the link, he didn’t do the research while Attorney General, as you lamely imply, but co-authored a paper which was at the behest of ACORN.

    Hey, freeper, I never implied he was current AG or did his research as AG. It’s not my fault you think you read something I did not say. What part of “former” is hard for you to understand?

    As for the third point, you’re calling the police a liar? Just, so I know and all that, when the cop said his cousin called him and, when he (the police officer) called him back, he was told the whole thing was a ruse. You’re calling a cop a liar?

    Just curious. ‘Cause this is sort of law and order type of blog (see Skip Gates) and the word of cops with no axe to grind is pretty sacrosanct here.

    So, Occam’s Razor has the ACORN AND the cop lying about it with independent stories? Man, you are weird

    timb (449046)

  61. timb, it’s hardly with the effort engaging with you but I will merely point out that when a corporation purports to investigate itself by “hir[ing] a commission to examine the scandal and suggest reforms,” your side almost always refers to this as a “whitewash” or a “coverup.” When a group that you favor does it, however, suddenly they are being entirely open and responsive.

    Now what was that about believing criticism having to do more with partisan bias?

    JVW (8704f2)

  62. When a cop repeats what someone else told him, it does not make the other guy’s statement true. When a reporter quotes a liar, it doesn’t make what the liar said true. Got that?

    Official Internet Data Office (2748b2)

  63. A liar because he doesn’t support your vision of events.

    JVW, did you know the Academy of motion pictures pays a group to audit the voting for their awards where millions of dollars are at stake! Who knew?

    And, although it is wonderful to accuse me generally of being offensive to the cartoon in your head regarding what “my side” says, it is srt of a ludicrous argument to shoot a messenger because your alleged and imagined political opponents do not support the methodology used to arrive at the result. In small words, freeper can understand, JVW, if you accept independent investigations in the corporate cases, then it is disingenuous to reject the same method used here just because you disagree with the result.

    timb (449046)

  64. Honestly, why do I bother with a group of people who are so confirmed in their beliefs, they can’t even bother to click on a link and read a report, because it might jar their cherished beliefs?

    What is about you people that made you afraid of facts and research? If you read the report and don’t like the result and have criticisms of it, then yay.

    But, instead I have a freeper calling a cop a liar,the host claiming no one knows anything if they accepted a check for their work, a bunch of knee-jerk reactionaries alleging a common business and government practice is bunk based on its conclusions!

    I’ll just go back to all snark/all the time. I had a brief moment of dawning faith there when someone was able to click on a link re McCain and expose him for what he is, but that was apparently was a single incident.

    timb (449046)

  65. LOL, the idea that we reject the “independent” investigation only because we disagree with the result!

    timb, you’re ridiculous. There was no independence. That’s proven. The results are incorrect, also proven. We have video proof of the problem’s severity in ACORN. We have video proof that the LA Times was LYING when it said it KNEW of a version of events that wasn’t true. They couldn’t know what they claimed they did, because knowledge has to be truth.

    Egg on their face, and egg on your face, now that both of you have been proven completely wrong. All you can muster is some vague ‘oh, we just have difference versions of truth… how dare you call me a liar!’.

    No, we don’t have different versions of the truth. We have video, you have lies. We have proof that your investigators are not independent, you have lies. We have the truth, you have egg up your nose.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  66. “… why do I bother with a group of people…”

    Yes, FLY!, why do you keep returning here to bother people?

    AD - RtR/OS! (b6fff3)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5124 secs.