Skip to main content

View Diary: James O'Keefe - again (74 comments)

Comment Preferences

    Recommended by:
    Tonedevil, PsychoSavannah, myboo, dougymi

    Where is the fiction that they did originating?

    •  I haven't seen any allegations that they took it (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eloise, DaNang65

      The "outrage" is because they didn't reject it out of hand from the get-go.

      •  and if they had rejected it from the get-go... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Catte Nappe

        ... the outrage would be that they didn't reject it by telling those nasty eevil Mooslims to go back to wherever-it-is they came from.  

        And if they had told them to go back to wherever-it-is, the outrage would have been that they didn't do it strongly enough.  

        And if they did it with a string of cusswords, the outrage would have been that they didn't kick them out physically, as in, boot to butt.  

        The Outrage needed something to justify its existence.

        Emotions lead and reason follows with an explanation.

    •  If someone with money wants to make a pitch, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Catte Nappe, lgcap, DaNang65

      you listen.  

      "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White

      by zenbassoon on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 02:39:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Um, because there IS no money? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Catte Nappe

      The people involved in the sting did not actually have $5 million. They were POSING as potential donors.

      Oh, and better news: O'Keefe has announced there is more footage to come in a few days. I wonder if the Aspen Institute will welcome Ron Schiller with open arms.

      •  O'Keefe is a proven lowlife fraudster (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Catte Nappe

        Believe his false claims at your peril.

        Yes, it's true there wasn't actually money, but O'Keefe must claim his targets believed there was money before he can condemn them for telling the truth. The bottom line is that their refusal says they NPR doesn't accept suspicious donations.

        If O'Keefe plans to argue they didn't accept because there was no money, then he must also agree that he was the one who was punked.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site