Surely this will bring the lamestream media to its knees America's Greatest Journalist, James O'Keefe, and his "Project Veritas" (Latin for "very tight underpants") are back with another hard-hitting investigation of shocking liberal bias in the lamestream media, in which one of O'Keefe's hidden-camera operatives catches a low-level twentysomething twit at the New York Times bragging about what an influential, connected guy he is. What! A low-level person in media with an inflated sense of his own importance? Stop the presses!
The Trumpians have always been better at targeting PEOPLE over anything else. It's practically a red flag for them where they will just drop everything else including the initial premise to do so.
How do you "show" that a person's WORK is biased? Attack the person and show (or try to) show that the person is BIASED (which accomplishes virtually nothing since technically everyone is biased to at least some degree), but not a single bit of that person's work that you claim is biased.
Because somehow showing that the person is biased (which everyone is) is "proof" enough.
This is like the umpteenth thousanth time we've seen this. It works well on Trumpian scum who don't do logic good so they keep using it.
That's the problem with talking to anyone tied to O'Keefe. Even if you know at the beginning of the scam interview what's going on and try to troll them, you have no idea how any recordings may be edited. If you end with "you idiot. I know who you are, you are the slime bucket who twists and edits videos." That part will never hit the final product.
Even if you do a straight interview and say "I don't think we should use lies and fabrications to attack Trump", they may leave out the "I don't think" part. By not releasing the full recording, you can't prove anything. Neither can O'Keefe, but he has millions of people that believe everything he publishes.
And of course, you run into the low level person who likes to boast about how essential they are to the operation. Apparently like Dudich, who really would be a good candidate to work at Project Veritas, since it looks like he is as full of shit as O'Keefe.
That's exactly what the GOP, Russia, and some Bernie Bros used against Clinton when the DNC/Podesta emails were leaked. Some staff members at the DNC did not like Bernie. But these emails came after months of the Sanders campaign claiming the DNC rigged the primaries and were overtly acting to defeat Bernie. I think that any group that thinks they are being unfairly attacked by another group will tend to dislike the other group. Yet despite these allegations, no one could ever point to any actual activities the DNC engaged in that favored Clinton. But the inference was that since some of them disliked Bernie, the entire organization was actively sabotaging his primary run.
Believe me, I heard stories from other parents, especially women, who were bullied and shunted off by the troop leaders, simply for presenting ideas and suggestions. The program in your area sounds much more healthy than the only choice I had.
They always say that about serial killers too, wasn't that what they said about John Wayne Gacey? (less the Indiana part.)
That makes more sense than his article.
Rupert Murdock owns WSJ, so probably off limits.
Project venereal ! LOL.
Sure seems like it. WTF?
The Trumpians have always been better at targeting PEOPLE over anything else. It's practically a red flag for them where they will just drop everything else including the initial premise to do so.
How do you "show" that a person's WORK is biased? Attack the person and show (or try to) show that the person is BIASED (which accomplishes virtually nothing since technically everyone is biased to at least some degree), but not a single bit of that person's work that you claim is biased.
Because somehow showing that the person is biased (which everyone is) is "proof" enough.
This is like the umpteenth thousanth time we've seen this. It works well on Trumpian scum who don't do logic good so they keep using it.
Did that link show the proof that they claim?
I'm leaning towards "it didn't".
Sophie looks so fresh and well, genuine, next to the former model's artifice.
He's taken dipshittery to a whole new level.
That's it I can resist no longer, I must subscribe to your newsletter. You are gifted.
That's the problem with talking to anyone tied to O'Keefe. Even if you know at the beginning of the scam interview what's going on and try to troll them, you have no idea how any recordings may be edited. If you end with "you idiot. I know who you are, you are the slime bucket who twists and edits videos." That part will never hit the final product.
Even if you do a straight interview and say "I don't think we should use lies and fabrications to attack Trump", they may leave out the "I don't think" part. By not releasing the full recording, you can't prove anything. Neither can O'Keefe, but he has millions of people that believe everything he publishes.
And of course, you run into the low level person who likes to boast about how essential they are to the operation. Apparently like Dudich, who really would be a good candidate to work at Project Veritas, since it looks like he is as full of shit as O'Keefe.
That's exactly what the GOP, Russia, and some Bernie Bros used against Clinton when the DNC/Podesta emails were leaked. Some staff members at the DNC did not like Bernie. But these emails came after months of the Sanders campaign claiming the DNC rigged the primaries and were overtly acting to defeat Bernie. I think that any group that thinks they are being unfairly attacked by another group will tend to dislike the other group. Yet despite these allegations, no one could ever point to any actual activities the DNC engaged in that favored Clinton. But the inference was that since some of them disliked Bernie, the entire organization was actively sabotaging his primary run.
And that lazy-ass George R.R Martin needs to finish A song of Ice and Fire (GOT's for the non-readers.)
Believe me, I heard stories from other parents, especially women, who were bullied and shunted off by the troop leaders, simply for presenting ideas and suggestions. The program in your area sounds much more healthy than the only choice I had.
I'd find that brief interesting.
And who says he's the only one that was doing it? I mean if your brother is a total sleaze don't you know that early on, like in high school?