It’s kind of funny that the NYTimes is giving the O’Keefe arrest 10 times the coverage they gave to the ACORN story he uncovered las summer. Of course the O’Keefe story is more important. ACORN only gets hundreds of millions of dollars from the governement, so there is no story there. But a journalist gets arrested, what a scandal!

O’Keefe is right about one thing…the MSM has shown malpractice in their handling of this story.

Personally, I think this will backfire. The more the MSM mention’s O’Keefe’s name the more they make him famous. The more they make him famous the more unwanted publicity ACORN will receive.

Contrast this treatment of O’Keefe in this case with the case when a Democrat’s son hacked Sarah Palin’s e-mail account?

Double standard? Absolutely?
Innocent until proven guilty? Not if the Left dislikes you.

Ahem… Mr. Douglas why do you keep talking around the issue and not about the issue.

I applaud Jim Letten for recusing himself. If he had been a Conservative (example Antonin Scalia) he would have marshaled on regardless of any relationship with a party in the case (in this case Letten might have a relationship to one of the defendants parents).

So man up and cover the issue. Oh, and actually read the damn article YOU actually site.

So man up and cover the issue.
Posted by Robert_Ingersoll 2010-02-02 09:41:31

You are telling us to ‘man-up’, yet your post is nothing more than, “you’d do it too. waaa waaa waaa!”

Here is the issue. The more facts that come out about this case, the less it is like the media originally reported it. This case is being played out in the press ot provide cover for ACORN and a pathetic attempt to discredit the Right.

Neither will work, no matter how much you whine.

@StanInTexas,

Media wont be trying the case the judicial system will be. So it doesn’t make a difference what the impartial (sarcasm) Hannity or Breibart (who supplemented O’Keefe’s last court case) involvement in this case. I don’t remember MSNBC or CNN contributing to David Kernell’s defense fund.

Posted by Robert_Ingertroll

Hey bobby, it looks like its time to change to one of your alternate sockpuppet ID’s and tell yourself how right you are. LOL!

Get back to us when you actually address the topic.

I don’t remember MSNBC or CNN contributing to David Kernell’s defense fund.
Posted by Robert_Ingersoll 2010-02-02 09:56:29

Oh, they did, with slanted and favorable news coverage. But that kind of contribution is fine with you and your ilk, since you are on the bulk of the recieving end of it from the alphabet networks. It’s that ‘dirty money’ that you hate, when it is not coming to you.

Contrast this treatment of O’Keefe in this case with the case when a Democrat’s son hacked Sarah Palin’s e-mail account?

Double standard? Absolutely?
Innocent until proven guilty? Not if the Left dislikes you.

Posted by StanInTexas
2010-02-02 09:39:47

You mean the one where he pleaded guilty. Sounds like it was handled appropriatly by the various legal entities that were involved, what exactly is your gripe Stanley?

Stan, are you depending on clusterFaux news for your facts?

This guy is what someone once called a “gotcha” reporter who fabricates scenarios and then people like you don’t question it.

Acorn is still going and is no where near the kind of org you characterize it as being. You blame others for what really amounts to your party’s ineptitude.

The party of no, know nothings.

I applaud Jim Letten for recusing himself. If he had been a Conservative

Letten is a Republican appointee of George W Bush, and yes, he is conservative, though you won’t hear it from him.

what exactly is your gripe Stanley?
Posted by whats_up 2010-02-02 10:12:47

Glad you asked, little bitch.

In the Palin e-mail case, the media coverage from the Left was about the supposed illegality of Palin doing ‘state business’ on a non-government issued e-mail account. The perp was treated like a whistleblower that had done a great service and his Democrat connections were only revealed by the Right.

Contrast that to O’Keefe, who has been vilified by innuendo and flase rumor. He has also been called a Conservative in an attempt to smear the Right AND absolve ACORN.

Add to that your personal abject hypocrisy on the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ issue. That’s the standard when it is Leon Panetta or anyone on the Left. But someone like O’Keefe that you hate? Why, the accusation is good enough. Let’s just skip the trial and go straight to the execution.

Clear enough for you, crthns?

@StaninTexas,

So you approve of the same people reporting the news (Fox/Breitbart) getting directly and financially involved in the cases they are reporting? Is that your definition of impartial?

Posted by Robert_Ingersoll 2010-02-02 10:22:29

Money is one thing, media bias is another. You apparently approve of the bias (as long as it swings your way).

BTW, FoxNews isn’t getting financially involved in anything, so stop lying. Hannity is putting up his own money as a private citizen. I guess you have a probelm with that too!

Hannity is trying to cover his ass.

You know clusterFaux is very up front about its agenda while claiming to be fair and balanced.

@RWNReader2,

While being appointed by a particular President doesn’t necessarily denote political philosophy, I will concede that on this issue I could be wrong.

But someone like O’Keefe that you hate? Why, the accusation is good enough. Let’s just skip the trial and go straight to the execution.

Clear enough for you, crthns?

Posted by StanInTexas
2010-02-02 10:19:11

Stan,

O’Keefe admitted that he posed as somebody he wasnt to enter the US Senators office, that is illegal. O”keefe admitted this, what part of that are you having trouble with.

He has also been called a Conservative in an attempt to smear the Right AND absolve ACORN.

Posted by StanInTexas
2010-02-02 10:19:11

He has called himself a conservative Stan, no one did that for him.

@StanInTexas,

You failed to address Breitbart and Hannity is a representative of Fox ‘News’ as he is reporting on the case (regardless of who’s money is being spent).

So to repeat the question, do you approve of the same people reporting the news (Fox/Breitbart) getting directly and financially involved in the cases they are reporting?

Can either of our trolls point out any errors in Fox News reporting of anything? Nixon will wait on it.

He has called himself a conservative Stan, no one did that for him.
Posted by whats_up
2010-02-02 10:39:26

Proof would be nice. Even though you won’t provide any about YOUR claim that David Duke voted Bush in 2004. March makes three years Nixon has been waiting for it.

You know clusterFaux is very up front about its agenda while claiming to be fair and balanced.
Posted by Jack Schite
2010-02-02 10:29:33

Any proof Jack? Since you have never provided any on any of your other lies, Nixon won’t hold his breath either.

So to repeat the question, do you approve of the same people reporting the news (Fox/Breitbart) getting directly and financially involved in the cases they are reporting?
Posted by Robert_Ingersoll 2010-02-02 10:39:56

Continue to frame your lie any way you want, it is still a lie.

Hannity is a political commentator, not an supposed impartial news anchor. I know very little about Breitbart. Neither are representative or speak for the entire Fox News Network. That is that.

Your turn. Do you approve of slanted news coverage in the guise of object reporting by people that claim to be impartial anchors?

Your turn. Do you approve of slanted news coverage in the guise of object reporting by people that claim to be impartial anchors?

Posted by StanInTexas
2010-02-02 10:53:29

Which specific anchors are you accusing here Stan?

Posted by whats_up
2010-02-02 10:55:37

Too stupid to do your own research Nixon sees. Somethings never change.

Which specific anchors are you accusing here Stan?
Posted by whats_up 2010-02-02 10:55:37

I am having a conversation with Robert_Ingersoll, answering his specific questions.

Either keep up or stay out of other people’s conversation! Or better yet, PROVIDE THE PROOF YOU WERE SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR!

Is that your definition of impartial?
Posted by Robert_Ingersoll
2010-02-02 10:22:29

MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS are your definitions of impartial. We see how that has been proven a fallacy.

I am having a conversation with Robert_Ingersoll, answering his specific questions.

Either keep up or stay out of other people’s conversation! Or better yet, PROVIDE THE PROOF YOU WERE SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR!

Posted by StanInTexas
2010-02-02 10:59:05

So you dont have an answer, the nebulus “them”. Typical of you Stan, you complain but dont have specifics. What proof have you asked for?

@StanInTexas,

If you want to go that route (since you are failing to answer a direct question with a yes or no) Fox ‘News’ is what percentage commentary vs. what percentage news?

If you want to go that route (since you are failing to answer a direct question with a yes or no) Fox ‘News’ is what percentage commentary vs. what percentage news?
Posted by Robert_Ingersoll 2010-02-02 11:16:00

So this is the way you want yo play it, Robert? You refuse to answer my questions after I answered yours and then complain about it?

You did not ask a YES/NO question because your question contained a lie. Fox New Is Not Financially Supporting ANYTHING! One commentator, not a new anchor is using his own money to help in this one case.

I answered your question, answer mine or STFU!

So you dont have an answer, the nebulus “them”. Typical of you Stan, you complain but dont have specifics. What proof have you asked for?
Posted by whats_up 2010-02-02 11:08:58

If you were not such a flaming dumbass, you would have seen the networks being discussion in Robert’s post 2010-02-02 09:56:29.

Now piss off and die, crthns.

What proof have you asked for?
Posted by whats_up
2010-02-02 11:08:58

That David Duke voted for Bush in 2004. Are you unable to read?

If you were not such a flaming dumbass, you would have seen the networks being discussion in Robert’s post 2010-02-02 09:56:29.

Now piss off and die, crthns.

Posted by StanInTexas
2010-02-02 11:23:57

So is it networks or anchors? Which are you having a problem with, you cant seem to keep your complaints straight, perhaps its time to change the meds.

StanInTexas@

Fox is as financially involved, as they were when they created and then covered the Tea Party events.

Fox is as financially involved, as they were when they created and then covered the Tea Party events.
Posted by Robert_Ingersoll 2010-02-02 11:40:31

So Robert, are you unable to answer my question, or just unwilling?

Fox is as financially involved, as they were when they created and then covered the Tea Party events.
Posted by Robert_Ingersoll
2010-02-02 11:40:31

Can you provide any proof? Or has that chicken been fucked to death already?

Posted by whats_up
2010-02-02 11:39:49

Why are you ignoring Nixon crthns? Afraid still to do so?

perhaps its time to change the meds.
Posted by whats_up 2010-02-02 11:39:49

Care to explain to us why you beleive so strongly in “Innocent until Proven Guilty”, except in this case crthns?

Fox is as financially involved, as they were when they created and then covered the Tea Party events.
Posted by Robert_Ingersoll
2010-02-02 11:40:31

PROVE IT, show the account ledgers from Fox News where a check has been written to O’keefe or his defense fund, or to any Tea Party member, NOT already on the Fox payroll.

I’ll be waiting with baited breathe.

Care to explain to us why you beleive so strongly in “Innocent until Proven Guilty”, except in this case crthns?

Posted by StanInTexas
2010-02-02 13:08:42

Perhaps it has something to do with that fact that O’Keefe admitted he entered a federal office under false pretenses, which is a felony.

Perhaps it has something to do with that fact that O’Keefe admitted he entered a federal office under false pretenses, which is a felony.
Posted by whats_up 2010-02-02 13:53:11

So a trial is not necessary for you? You seemed to have missed the PROVEN part, as well as the part where O’Keefe is now saying that he admitted nothing.

Well, crthns?

Perhaps it has something to do with that fact that O’Keefe admitted he entered a federal office under false pretenses, which is a felony.
Posted by whats_up
2010-02-02 13:53:11

Can you link a confession please?

So a trial is not necessary for you? You seemed to have missed the PROVEN part, as well as the part where O’Keefe is now saying that he admitted nothing.

Well, crthns?

Posted by StanInTexas
2010-02-02 13:55:15

Well then perhaps he shouldnt get on Hannity and say things like this:

HANNITY: OK, so now — and I don’t know all the facts so I want to make sure because you disputed a lot of claims in the media in your statement. So did you dress up as a telephone repairman or telephone repair people?

O’KEEFE: Yes, I mean, as far as that’s concerned, I mean, investigative journalists have been using a lot of these tactics for years. I mean, NBC, “Dateline” —

HANNITY: Yes, but — all right. But did you dress up as a repair guy?

O’KEEFE: Yes.

HANNITY: You did?

O’KEEFE: We did, yes.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,584563,00.html

Posted by whats_up 2010-02-02 15:13:28

So Hannity is a Federal Judge and his show is a Court of Law?

O’Keefe has not been tried. He has not yet been found guilty. He is therefore innocent until PROVEN guilty.

You do understand that concept, don’t you crthns?

Posted by StanInTexas
2010-02-02 16:01:52

Ah okay, so you just want to trial to happen, no problem we can wait.

until you can prove otherwise I will believe he is telling the truth, fortuantly we live in a country that belives that people are telling the truth until someone, anyone can PROVE that said person is lying. Until you can do that Panetta will be believed by most of the country.

Posted by whats_up 2009-07-09 16:07:01

As opposed to you that wants him convicted and sentenced WITHOUT a trial. Which is a standard you only have for those on the Right you don’t like.

Your hypocrisy is available for all to se, crthns. Thanks!

As opposed to you that wants him convicted and sentenced WITHOUT a trial. Which is a standard you only have for those on the Right you don’t like.

Your hypocrisy is available for all to se, crthns. Thanks!
Posted by StanInTexas
2010-02-02 16:21:58

Stan,

O”keefe’s owns statements seem to be pretty good PROOF to me, but we can wait for the trial.

O”keefe’s owns statements seem to be pretty good PROOF to me, but we can wait for the trial.
Posted by whats_up 2010-02-02 16:35:06

Are you referring to statements like this, from the same interview you sited above?

HANNITY: Do you see any law — without getting into the specifics here of your case, do you see any law that is valid? I mean they did charge you but that doesn’t mean you’re going to be found guilty. Do you see any law might be in question?

O’KEEFE: I mean, I don’t think — I don’t think at any time I broke the law. I — and when I spent the night in jail I was trying to figure out what I possibly did wrong. We had a plane to catch the following morning. So had no idea — you know, I really did not think we broke any laws and I was just completely — you know, I think this is sort of a misunderstanding.

HANNITY: All right. So some the reports I went over and I looked at the reporting of this, Louisiana Watergate. That there was a gag order on you, not true?

O’KEEFE: That’s false.

HANNITY: That you broke into the office?

O’KEEFE: How do you break into a public office? That was false.

HANNITY: That was open?

O’KEEFE: Yes.

HANNITY: OK. At the time. Were you any time asked to leave?

O’KEEFE: No. No.

HANNITY: You weren’t. And you didn’t answer the question about whether or not you went into the telephone main control area.

O’KEEFE: Yes, like I just can’t get that detailed, because there’s an investigation, but you know the truth will come out in the end.

Yeah, crthns. Real damning stuff. No wonder you want him convicted without a trial. Of course, maybe you could testify, since you have read his mind and you know his ‘intent’.