READER COMMENTS ON
"VIDEO: 'Andy Breitbart Explains It All For You' - An Exclusive Interview, Disturbing Admissions, and Manic Responses to the ACORN Video 'Pimp' Hoax"
(176 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
...
sophia
said on 3/1/2010 @ 8:02 am PT...
Just a note on technology & compatibility-my crapberry does NOT support flash video-strange, huh? Just wondering how many out there, dependent on their 'smart phones' for info, don't get to see the good stuff. I can watch a lot of video posted on youtube, but not everything. I can't use my computer much anymore due to injury, so am frequently out of luck. Is there another format in which videos on bradblog can be posted for those of us who are shut out? Thanks!
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
...
Shortbus
said on 3/1/2010 @ 8:03 am PT...
It does matter Andy!
Release the Tapes!
Thank You Mr.Stark, for a fine piece of work here.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
...
Hugh Burns
said on 3/1/2010 @ 10:05 am PT...
At the 9:38 mark of the video, Breitbart says "And you care about what the pimp was wearing," This statement appears to confirm that contrary to the truth. Breitbart is saying the O'keefe was posing as a pimp inside the ACORN offices, which he was not. Breitbart is not simply stating that O'keefe was dressed as a pimp for an intro, but Breitbart is impling that O'keefe was appearing as a pimp the entire time he was inside ACORN offices.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
...
MP3 Obsession.com
said on 3/1/2010 @ 10:28 am PT...
This might not be the right place to post this, but I just wanted to say what a great site.
I just stumbled across it and have wasted most of my day reading through old posts!
I'm definitely adding you to my feed list.
Thanks
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
...
camusrebel
said on 3/1/2010 @ 11:00 am PT...
The NYT has no interest in the truth. They are a mouthpiece for a segment of society that would love to destroy ACORN.
When Judy Wood was selling an illegal war like it was so much laundry detergent, do you think her bosses were unaware how completely false her bullshit was? No. They knew perfectly well it was crap. But it serves their masters agenda.
Why did they sit on the illegal wiretaping story for 9 months until after the election?
That rag is worse than Pravda. The sooner its inevitable demise occurs the better.
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
...
Mitch
said on 3/1/2010 @ 11:15 am PT...
Mr. Breitbart,
I care what O'Keefe was wearing to ACORN's offices, but I care more about what sort of editing Mr. O'Keefe did to his videos.
If the full unedited videos show what you claim, why are you not releasing them? Most people are anxious to be vindicated by evidence they control.
I suspect, based on your behavior in the video attached to this article, that you realize the unedited videos would seriously damage your "credibility."
If someone really believed that "it doesn't matter" what O'Keefe wore to the ACORN offices, and did not think the gist of the videos was edited to present a deception, here's what they would do: they would show the unedited videos to anyone interested, hand out transcripts to anyone interested, and say the costume worn to the office was irrelevant. Your audience would agree with you.
I'm in my mid-fifties and have spent most of my professional life training software engineers and doing computer programming myself. I'm not an ideologue except that I don't like lies.
Even more than I don't like lies, I don't like the arrogance of newspapers like the Times, which don't think they need to correct lies they've helped spread. That means I actually think more highly of you than I do of the public editor at the Times.
I think of myself as liberal. The next time you think of the left-wing media (a/k/a The Times), please take a moment to think of this: as a liberal, I think the Times is basically a tool of power and wealth, without a liberal thought to be found in its building. If you're looking for "liberal," look to non-US media.
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
...
CharlieL
said on 3/1/2010 @ 11:39 am PT...
@MP3 Obsession.com Spending a day in the Bradblog archives is NEVER a waste. Everybody out there who thinks they are getting "the story" from The New York Times or even from The Atlantic or even The Nation should spend a day in the archives of this site. It might very well be the most educational day spent online.
@camusrebel I think you meant Judith Miller, but your sentiment is completely correct. NYT editors KNEW she was full of crap, and they didn't care.
They refused to cover election fraud fairly. They refused to cover the fact that Bush was using an earpiece at many points in his illegal occupancy, including during at least one Presidential debate, and perhaps at his 9/11 testimony.
They refuse to cover most of the "problems" with the 9/11 story.
They basically refuse to cover anything outside the very narrow frame of Republicans and Democrats and the status quo.
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
...
T.R.O.
said on 3/1/2010 @ 12:07 pm PT...
It is pretty interesting to compare and contrast the angst that the New York Times experienced a couple of years ago regarding a story dealing with John McCain and lobbyist Vicki Iseman. Anybody remember that?
Such fretting and soul wrenching by Keller as has not been witnessed since, and most surely not in attempting to establish the veracity of the Pimpostor's verbal assertions, nor his videos' veracity.
The ACORN stories were certainly not handled with the studied reticence,nor with utmost delicacy as to not offend delicate sensibilities,as was the McCain scenario.
Read the piece and decide for yourself:
The Long Run-Up | The New Republic
After three different versions, the piece ended up not as a stand-alone investigation but as an entry in the paper's “The Long Run” series looking at ...
www.tnr.com/article/politics/the-long-run - Cached - Similar
How many other stories ,on another note, has the NYT "spiked",btw?
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
...
T.R.O.
said on 3/1/2010 @ 12:18 pm PT...
@#7
A verynarrow frame as to not properly reveal the bigger picture.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
...
Adam Fulford
said on 3/1/2010 @ 12:35 pm PT...
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
...
David Lasagna
said on 3/1/2010 @ 12:42 pm PT...
Brad and Mike--technical issue-
On the print out text for this post, in 4th paragraph which starts--"But then my luck turned", the 2nd sentence is interrupted after "..basement to cover the.."and jumps to the 3rd sentence picking it up at "previously questioned Breitbart..". Bunch of words missing in between.
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
...
Brad Friedman
said on 3/1/2010 @ 1:02 pm PT...
Thanks, David L. HTML typo! Good catch. Have fixed. Gracias!
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
...
Adam Fulford
said on 3/1/2010 @ 1:17 pm PT...
This looks like a better link than the other one I gave to test BradBlog.com's compatibility with mobile phones:
http://mobiready.com
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
...
Big Dan
said on 3/1/2010 @ 1:46 pm PT...
The first seconds of the video, I was going to comment on how calm he seems, but I was going to ask why he always seems to have a permanent frown on and circles under his eyes. Then he flipped out. He looks insane.
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
...
OR Native
said on 3/1/2010 @ 2:01 pm PT...
Dear Mr. Hoyt,
Here is the general public AND congress's "take away" of your stories on O'Keefe's video's. Dressed as a Pimp, O'Keefe entered ACORN offices from coast to coast and asked for help running a child prostitution ring AND how to hide the income from the IRS and ACORN did not alert the authorities.
What the transcript, a video taped interview of one of the actors in the video and a video taped interview of the producer now confirm is that Mr. O'Keefe was dressed in an oxford shirt and Dockers in ALL of the Acron offices and that he never openly said he was a pimp or that he was going to be bringing young women into the country to work as prostitutes or sex slaves.
Additionally, for the first week or so, your coverage did not include easily verifiable claims that several ACORN offices did call the police to report the encounters OR include interviews with ACORN employees in the offices named in the video for their account.
Now three months later the impression the Public AND Congress has of ACORN's actions during and after this attempted "sting" is still factually incorrect. This false impression is due largely to your papers "reporting" which we now know did not meet the highest of journalistic standards that the NYT has historically applied.
Unlike many people who have contacted you demanding a correction of one or two aspects of this story Im strongly suggesting that if the NYT expects to maintain the confidence of the American Public as The Paper of Record that they devote significant and prominent space to correcting the misleading impression your coverage has left in the public's mind.
Anything less is and admission that you can be easily manipulated and will be too embarassed to admit it when confronted with hard evidence. Your continued refusal to set the record straight only shows that you care more about the papers "perceived political balance" than the consequences that manipulation has had on hundreds of thousands of Americans dependent upon ACORN for stabilizing their lives and providing an opportunity to live with dignity and participate EQUALLY in our democracy.
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
...
Jeannie Dean
said on 3/1/2010 @ 2:29 pm PT...
Great job, Mike. This is exactly the kind of quality citizen journalism that can make a huge difference in the long run, as opposed to the bottom-feeding, short-term, high voltage, possibly illegal (?)and definitely manufactured "splash" The Effin'Times likes to repeatedly lie about.
So, thank you. A portion of my tax refund has just been re-appropriated by my internal moral-center steering committee and will land in yours (and Brad's) PAYPAL account as soon as it's birthed into direct deposit being.
I, like others here I'm sure, would love to see a play by play of O'Keefe's raw video / audio review and analysis from AV and intelligence experts just to see what else was bogusly bought. If (and when) Doofus-Boofy releases them, please pass the PAYPAL hat so I can contribute. Can't think of a better way to spend what would have been my $50.00 / year New York TIMES SUBSCRIPTION dollars.
Keep up the great work.
(Tweeting away: NYT Public Editor #CLARKHOYT RETRACT #Breitbart's INSANE #O'keefeACORNHOAX #Clark Hoyt #GIANTDOUCHEBAG #NYTIMESFAIL http://bit.ly/blwEWa
less than 5 seconds ago via web)
(Big Dan @#14 - HA!)
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
...
Jeannie Dean
said on 3/1/2010 @ 2:38 pm PT...
Also wondering: Was this interview filmed before or after Breitbart's freaky-deaky confession /acceptance speech where he opened with that sarcastic admission of guilt that fell flat because his audience doesn't read BRADBLOG?
(Welcome MP3!)
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
...
sophia
said on 3/1/2010 @ 3:40 pm PT...
@adam fulford-many thanks-did go to the adobe site long ago to no avail. They are only just coming out with a new crosplatform mobile phone capability. Not sure what to do on the mobi web page. I'll jut get on my computer and watch the fun another time. Ciao!
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
...
PatriotNW
said on 3/1/2010 @ 3:57 pm PT...
So, he will "release" the unedited video if he can get a moment to grandstand and try to weasel more attention through a larger media blitz, but he won't release the video purely for journalistic integrity? I have a song for you, Breitbart. "Old MacDonald knew a man and Lame-O was his Name-O. L-A-M-E.O. L-A-M-E.O. L-A-M-E.O. And Lame-O was his Name-O"
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
...
Brad Friedman
said on 3/1/2010 @ 4:08 pm PT...
Jeanie Dean @ 17 asked:
Also wondering: Was this interview filmed before or after Breitbart's freaky-deaky confession /acceptance speech where he opened with that sarcastic admission of guilt that fell flat because his audience doesn't read BRADBLOG?
It was in the hall, must BEFORE he went on stage and made that "freaky-deaky confession". Do his comment there make more sense now?
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
...
Brad Friedman
said on 3/1/2010 @ 4:09 pm PT...
BREAKING: Brooklyn D.A. says "No criminality found" at Brooklyn ACORN.
Law enforcement source tells NYDailyNews: "They edited the video to meet their agenda".
No kidding? Details: https://bradblog.com/?p=7721
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
...
zapkitty
said on 3/1/2010 @ 5:06 pm PT...
Nothing to add to Brad and Mike re: Bitefart ... but you are aware that "MP3 Obsession.com" is a spambot, right?
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
...
camusrebel
said on 3/1/2010 @ 5:54 pm PT...
yeah, wow, I really mixed up my Judys.
While I'm basking in my mistakes...I mentioned a few days ago that Howard Baker was helping to defend O'Keefe and his 3 co-criminals in the NOLA bugging. I got that from the comments section of another blog. Trying to verify it I came up empty. Fact checking can be fun and rewarding, maybe Hoyt and co. should try it.
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
...
sophia
said on 3/1/2010 @ 6:04 pm PT...
BTW-the comments on the Politico site, below the article linked in the comments here, are quite amusing-a dogfight between the braindead teabagger zombies (convinced that it's all a liberal set up b/c the investigation took place in new york) and a few stalwarts who actually know what is happening re: costuming, set-ups & the like. Kinda fun. Enjoy. A never go to Politico-it's so partisan I wheeze while reading its 'in the know' posts. Ciao!
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
...
bartkid
said on 3/1/2010 @ 6:19 pm PT...
(No relation to bartcop, brietbart, or even bart simpson.)
As a personal favour to me, can everyone from now on call this person Brietborat?
Thank you.
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
...
Brad Friedman
said on 3/1/2010 @ 6:19 pm PT...
CamusRebel -
It's Howard Baker's lead attorney from the Senate Watergate committee who is representing O'keefe. From back when Baker was the ranking Repub on the committee.
COMMENT #27 [Permalink]
...
Adam Fulford
said on 3/1/2010 @ 6:43 pm PT...
... sophia said on 3/1/2010 @ 3:40 pm PT...
Not sure what to do on the mobi web page.
Sorry, that was just the first page I found on testing website mobile phone compatibility. I think I just confused matters with it, lol (also, seems to be someone's affiliate link --- not mine --- whoops). Anyway, basically a .mobi site would just be a site specifically designed to be seen on mobile phones.
COMMENT #28 [Permalink]
...
Danny Guam
said on 3/1/2010 @ 6:46 pm PT...
Sorry Brad, but he is already known as blartblart.
(thanks to SadlyNo)
COMMENT #29 [Permalink]
...
Ernest A. Canning
said on 3/1/2010 @ 7:35 pm PT...
"Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive!" --- Sir Walter Scott
COMMENT #30 [Permalink]
...
Patterico
said on 3/1/2010 @ 7:36 pm PT...
Highly edited, deceptive video with no transcript or unedited audio. Also, it lies about whether O'Keefe pretended to be a pimp. He and Giles said they were setting up a house for Giles and underaged girls to turn tricks and give the money to O'Keefe for his Congressional campaign. Your claim that he was not pretending to be a pimp is just an attempt to rewrite history and it is a goddamned lie.
Luckily none of this matters to anyone but you idiots. Most people understand that a guy who sets up a house of prostitution and takes the proceeds is a pimp. You're the only ones too stupid or dishonest to understand that.
That's why Hoyt says your view of what happened on the video is partisan and not credible. He's right there.
[Ed Note: Consider this your warning, Patty. We have a very few rules for commenting here. Among them, no personal insults to other commenters. Please respect those rules at this site, even if no such similar courtesies or decency exists over at your own blog. Thanks. - BF]
COMMENT #31 [Permalink]
...
David Lasagna
said on 3/1/2010 @ 8:30 pm PT...
Coupla things--
1. Mike, I apologize for my critical self as I think you're doing great work here but I have to say it was disconcerting given the subject matter to see so many edits throughout your piece. From what I've seen of Breitbart I have no reason to think he is being misrepresented here in the slightest but given the fractious history of the particulars in this story all the editing makes me kinda queasy.
2. Particularly helpful in this video to see Breitbart not behaving always like an angry madman. When he's calmer it's much easier to hear his point of view.
3. Seeing/hearing him in this new way leads me to think he is completely sincere in his belief that he is doing the right and upstanding thing, fighting the good fight. I believe this fight of his is based on almost 100% pure magical thinking, but I think Breitbart believes in what he is doing. I suspect he is not consciously trying to be manipulative or deceitful.
4. The big thing I want to comment on, therefore, is a different way of dealing with Bartleby the Pimpener and his cohorts. But it's late in the East and I fear it may take an hour or two to comment coherently and do the topic justice. Maybe tomorrow. Good night all.
And Mike Stark, thanks for this work. Invaluable.
COMMENT #32 [Permalink]
...
Patterico
said on 3/1/2010 @ 8:37 pm PT...
"it was disconcerting given the subject matter to see so many edits throughout your piece."
Just go to the unedited audio.
Oh, that's right. There is none.
I bet Breitbart destroys Stark in the portions left on the cutting room floor. Kind of like when Larry O'Connor destroyed Blumenthal and Blumenthal left that part on the cutting room floor. Luckily someone else taped it.
Release the full video, Stark! WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF?!?!?!?!
COMMENT #33 [Permalink]
...
David Lasagna
said on 3/1/2010 @ 8:37 pm PT...
I hope my fellow Brodblogdinians will not mistake my words for a yielding of even a millimeter of ground on the substantive issues here. I do not yield anything on all that Brad has uncovered. I'm just interested in a different, possibly more constructive(possibly impossible), way of dealing with the madness.
COMMENT #34 [Permalink]
...
David Lasagna
said on 3/1/2010 @ 8:51 pm PT...
Patterico--
Do I come shit in your house?
What are you doing?
What's the purpose of coming in here screaming insults?
If you just need to scream and have a shit fit, I guess I can understand that. And I won't bother you any more. Go at it.
But if you're interested in dialogue I can assure you, conversations that start off with Linda Blair projectile vomits across the bow usually result in just a messy deck. So if messing up the deck is your aim, you're doing great.
If you're interested in dialogue...
Got any other approach shots?
COMMENT #35 [Permalink]
...
David Lasagna
said on 3/1/2010 @ 8:53 pm PT...
Sorry, shoulda specified--Patterico @ 30
COMMENT #36 [Permalink]
...
Patterico
said on 3/1/2010 @ 8:57 pm PT...
David Lasagna,
I come in here as I do because of the breathtaking dishonesty of the host of the site and of the author of this piece.
You want to have a civil discussion, you and me, that's fine. I didn't insult YOU. Just the people I already know to be liars.
So, let's start our civil discussion.
I put this to you: don't you agree that O'Keefe pretended to be a pimp at ACORN, regardless of how he was dressed?
COMMENT #37 [Permalink]
...
The Devolutionist
said on 3/1/2010 @ 10:23 pm PT...
Did he actually ask why BradBlog doesn't go after the Merry Pranksters? Seriously? Um, how about because that was the 1960s, Ken Kesey is DEAD, and I don't recall that the Pranksters did anything as outrageous and propagandistic as what O'Keefe and Breitbart pulled? How's that for a start.
If Breitbart is not in fact putting on one of the greatest pieces of performance art in history, then he is mentally unbalanced and should seek help.
COMMENT #38 [Permalink]
...
Brad Friedman
said on 3/1/2010 @ 10:31 pm PT...
Patterico @ 30:
Patty, I hadn't seen your note @ 30 before replying to the last one. I'll repeat what I added to it as an Ed Note up there:
[Ed Note: Consider this your warning, Patty. We have a very few rules for commenting here. Among them, no personal insults to other commenters. Please respect those rules at this site, even if no such similar courtesies or decency exists over at your own blog. Thanks. - BF]
You are welcome to hurl personal insults at me if you like, if that's the best case you're able to muster, but you are not welcome to do so at other commenters here, as per those rules. Thank you again, in advance, for respecting them here.
COMMENT #39 [Permalink]
...
David Lasagna
said on 3/1/2010 @ 10:32 pm PT...
Patterico @ 36--
Way past sleepytime. I'll get to your question on the morrow.
But I have not read all the transcripts. Maybe I can find them somewhere tomorrow and print them out so I can take a good look at them.
Have you gone through all the transcripts?
Wouldn't that be helpful, if we're both up to speed on what's supposed to be in them? Maybe you are already. I'm not, yet.
COMMENT #40 [Permalink]
...
Brad Friedman
said on 3/1/2010 @ 10:36 pm PT...
David Lasagna @ 31 said:
1. Mike, I apologize for my critical self as I think you're doing great work here but I have to say it was disconcerting given the subject matter to see so many edits throughout your piece. From what I've seen of Breitbart I have no reason to think he is being misrepresented here in the slightest but given the fractious history of the particulars in this story all the editing makes me kinda queasy.
No worries, Dave. Stark told Breitbart during the taping that he'd be releasing the full, unedited videos (since Andy couldn't be honest enough to do same for his false vids). But I think Mike just wanted to wait for folks like Patty to start screaming hypocrisy first
Full transcript will also be available. But not unless Patty says pretty please.
3. Seeing/hearing him in this new way leads me to think he is completely sincere in his belief that he is doing the right and upstanding thing, fighting the good fight. I believe this fight of his is based on almost 100% pure magical thinking, but I think Breitbart believes in what he is doing. I suspect he is not consciously trying to be manipulative or deceitful.
You've been conned. Andy knows *precisely* what he's doing. He knows it has nothing to do with government corruption or prostitution rings (else he'd have bothered to publish even one article on this). It's a purely political game for him, no matter how many good folks get hurt in the bargain.
But no worries, you wouldn't be the first to have fallen for his loathsome scams (yup, talking to you, New York Times!
COMMENT #41 [Permalink]
...
Patterico
said on 3/1/2010 @ 10:58 pm PT...
Friedman the hypocrite calls me "Patty" in the same sentence where he decries my lack of civility. At least he says I am free to call him a shameless liar, and so I will. As for his other commenters, anyone else who repeats his shameless lies will get the same treatment. Mr. Lasagna, by contrast, claims to be for civil discussion and I will take him at his word. Accordingly, I will talk to him civilly, declare Friedman a liar, and deal with others as their behavior warrants.
COMMENT #42 [Permalink]
...
David Lasagna
said on 3/1/2010 @ 11:31 pm PT...
My Dearest Bradford @ 40
Was that really the end of your comment? You finished with me quoting me?
As to being conned, I must beg to differ, my liege. I do not think I have been conned for I believe naught that he says. I am merely of opinion that I am seeing a fool who believes his own foolishness. In this I am certainly only witnessing the most common of occurrences--a human enamored of their own magic thinking. Is this being conned? Say it is not so, my lord and king.
And my careful friend, though you have offered volumes testifying to the extent that Breitbart, O'Keefe, and Consorts have mislead and misrepresented in these matters, I have seen no one offer a deep, authoritative, psychological profile as to motivation.(And I'm not complaining or suggesting you need to do this, I'm just saying...)
I'm not speaking here of obvious political motivations. I'm referring to the deeper more personal ones. Just because people are doing things, saying things that defy common sense or are 180 degrees opposite of previous things they've said, does not mean that they don't fully believe themselves in the moment or that they haven't found a way to completely and happily ignore previous statements.
I know this for a fact. An incredibly painful and unhappily experienced more than once personal fact. So please hold off a bit on the notion that I've been conned. I think I'm just seeing a possible different motivational construct than you are. In this case. My dear friend.
Sure could be wrong. Don't have a ton to go on. But from what I'm seen, for now I'm sticking with he's sincere.
Have I mentioned that I'm a dog? I think I have some dog sense about people.
I'm a fucking addict here, Brad. I was going to bed two hours ago. Now it's almost 2:30 and I still have to drop a note to Serpico.
COMMENT #43 [Permalink]
...
Brad Friedman
said on 3/1/2010 @ 11:32 pm PT...
Patterico @ 41 said:
Accordingly, I will talk to him civilly, declare Friedman a liar, and deal with others as their behavior warrants.
If you do not wish to be banned, but rather prefer to stay here and make your case --- whatever you may wish it to be today, and whether it disagrees with mine or not --- you will follow the simple rules here, or you won't be participating, Mr. Deputy D.A.
Thank you in advance again.
Oh...and since you've repeatedly used it to call me a liar (and worse, suggesting I support child prostitution or some such utterly dishonest nonsense), I'm renewing my request again for descriptions of the procedure you used to authenticate the so-called "unedited audio" you've repeatedly referred to as "proof" of this or that.
I realize you're time spent as a wingnut blogger is separate from your work as the Deputy D.A., but I'm sure, given your job, you know what it means to authenticate evidence such as audio, to determine whether or not it's edited or "unedited" as you've claimed with certainty. Your explanation will be helpful here, so we can put all such concerns on that point to rest.
COMMENT #44 [Permalink]
...
David Lasagna
said on 3/1/2010 @ 11:41 pm PT...
Mr Patterico @ 41--
Now that I have so unabashedly and shamelessly declared my love for Mr. Badly Fried Man I fear that I may have despoiled our chance for civility. I hope you can find it in your heart to pursue civil discourse, even for one such as I who holds in high esteem him whom you revile.
In any case, before I got caught up in my love disagreement with Brad, I was gonna tell you I've printed out 78 pages of the trancsripts from New York and Baltimore. I hope that's sufficient and representative. I'll read them tomorrow. Have you read them? Are we gonna be comparing the same notes?
COMMENT #45 [Permalink]
...
Brad Friedman
said on 3/1/2010 @ 11:49 pm PT...
Lasagna @ 42:
Was that really the end of your comment? You finished with me quoting me?
My bad. Have cleaned up behind myself there. Apologies for the confusion!
As to being conned, I must beg to differ, my liege. I do not think I have been conned for I believe naught that he says. I am merely of opinion that I am seeing a fool who believes his own foolishness.
As I said, you've been conned
As to the rest, as ever, I'll stick to reporting what I can actually prove, and leave you guys to the speculation and pondering
COMMENT #46 [Permalink]
...
Patterico
said on 3/2/2010 @ 12:15 am PT...
"I am merely of opinion that I am seeing a fool who believes his own foolishness."
Says Mr. Civil. OK, Mr. Lasagna. Let everyone note who leveled the first insult.
Oh: Friedman is a liar. Did I mention that?
He is currently coupled with Boehlert in a hoax --- still uncorrected --- claiming O'Keefe has not released the ACORN audio.
Liar Friedman knows what he said is not true. But he has not retracted.
Odd, for the guy who claims to care about truth.
I said "claims."
COMMENT #47 [Permalink]
...
SreeBee
said on 3/2/2010 @ 12:22 am PT...
I just want to offer my sincere thanks to Mike Stark, Brad Feidman and ESPECIALLY to the "disgusting" Eric Boelhert for exposing Breitbart, O'Keefe and the rest of the BigGov smear-squad for the power-hungry, lunatic predators that they are!!!!! The world owes you all an incredible debt of gratitude for taking a stand against Breitbart's dark-age assault on reason, decency and compassion.
Mike, i'm sure it could not have been easy to share your past as you had in this article, but I commend you for doing so. People need to know that there are faces behind social services. People need to know that ACORN serves real people with real problems... that its not just all political symbols.
I really hope your statement gets much more distribution... particularly to those that really need to read it. The points you bring up are too important, albeit completely ignored in the overall discussion of this matter.
Thanks for the good work!
COMMENT #48 [Permalink]
...
Patterico
said on 3/2/2010 @ 12:24 am PT...
I debunk some of the lies and myths spread by Friedman, Boehlert, etc. here.
Using evidence and facts.
COMMENT #49 [Permalink]
...
Patterico
said on 3/2/2010 @ 12:25 am PT...
I could have included the lies spread by Stark's video, discussed in this post. Oh well. Read the post and you'll see just where Stark has also lied.
COMMENT #50 [Permalink]
...
Chris Hooten
said on 3/2/2010 @ 1:46 am PT...
Patterico:
Ha hahah hahhahah hahahahah hahahah hah. You are obviously Breitbart. How's it goin'?:-) Are you seriously going to come in here and try to tell the regulars that Brad is a big liar, and then lie about what Brad was supposedly "lying" about? How sad. Good luck with that one.
COMMENT #51 [Permalink]
...
camusrebel
said on 3/2/2010 @ 6:32 am PT...
Pattie...among your other personal issues you seem to have an inflated ego. Mine may be one of the least nimble of minds here, yet even I knew the "fool believing own foolishness" was directed at not too Brightbart. Is it true he is you? I do not really believe it.
Yet, you jump to the unfounded belief that Mr. Lasagna was talking about you when it is clear even to a blue collar hack like myself he was not.
You did this to put him on notice for having cast the first uncivil stone. Dare we ask for a retraction?
COMMENT #52 [Permalink]
...
Paul L.
said on 3/2/2010 @ 7:49 am PT...
So when is Mike Stark going to release the whole unedited video? Since that is the standard of Journalism Brad Friedman claims should be followed.
COMMENT #53 [Permalink]
...
Ancient
said on 3/2/2010 @ 7:51 am PT...
COMMENT #54 [Permalink]
...
Brad Friedman
said on 3/2/2010 @ 8:37 am PT...
PaulL @ 52 asked:
So when is Mike Stark going to release the whole unedited video? Since that is the standard of Journalism Brad Friedman claims should be followed.
Actually, I believe you've misrepresented what I've said about that. What I said was that Breitbart/O'Keefe refuse to release the unedited videos, and have pointed out that, given the repeated questions about the edited versions validity, as to their accuracy and whether they were (as a law enforcement source was quoted saying yesterday as the D.A. cleared Brooklyn ACORN of criminality), "edited to meet their agenda", obviously, the unedited videos should be released so that we can all determine what actually did or didn't happen in those offices.
If there were no questions about the veracity of O'Keefe and Breitbart and no claims that the tapes were misrepresentative of what actually happened, etc. there would be no need to release the raw footage of the highly-doctored, heavily-overdubbed, secretly-taped ACORN videos, there would be no need, nor no call for the release of the unedited versions.
But since the credibility of O'Keefe and Breitbart has obviously taken a serious hit as each have been caught now in one scam after another in regard to these tapes (and, in O'Keefe's case, to federal felonies he has allegedly committed) the deceptive duo has a responsibility to support their supposed "journalism" with transparency that they have so far showed unwilling to do.
That said, when Mike Stark interviewed Breitbart in the damning video as seen above, he promised Breitbart he'd release the full, unedited version of the video. And so he will. And thanks for playing along. Don't know if he will do so when Breitbart and O'Keefe release theirs, or if he plans to do so sooner or not.
I should add, btw, that apparently unlike Breitbart, I actually bothered to review the entirety of those unedited videos before publishing the edited one here, by way of due dilligence. Too bad Breitbart either didn't do same, or did, but then subsequently lied about it.
COMMENT #55 [Permalink]
...
Brad Friedman
said on 3/2/2010 @ 8:45 am PT...
Patterico @ 46 said:
Oh: Friedman is a liar. Did I mention that?
He is currently coupled with Boehlert in a hoax --- still uncorrected --- claiming O'Keefe has not released the ACORN audio.
Liar Friedman knows what he said is not true. But he has not retracted.
Now, Patty, when I pointed you (several times) to those few rules for posting comments here at The BRAD BLOG, I presumed you'd actually bother to read them. Given they are all of 5 or 6 sentences long, I'd figured a Deputy D.A. such as yourself would be able to make it all the way through them. But apparently you didn't bother --- or didn't care.
We have a rule against spreading "knowing disinformation" here. Now we know that you know the above is disinformative, since I've corrected you on it previously, and you've acknowledged that correction.
So are you going to clarify the disinformation you've just posted here? Or do I have to start moderating your posts for prior-approval and/or start banning you entirely?
I'd much rather not have to treat you like a Kindergartner, so please correct the record here. Thank you.
Also, still waiting to hear about how you, Patrick Frey, Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney went about authenticating the "unedited audio" that you claim proves this thing and that thing to be a "lie", etc.
Thank you again in advance for doing the right thing. I'm sure you've got it in you. You were once a very decent fellow when I hosted you in studio on my radio show, so I can only hope that your appalling behavior on the web is a show for your fans, rather than a real testament to your character (or, lack thereof, depending on what you do from here.)
COMMENT #56 [Permalink]
...
BlueHawk
said on 3/2/2010 @ 9:24 am PT...
In a video interview posted Monday at Crooks and Liars, Stark Reports, as well as The Brad Blog, Breitbart, filmed by blogger Mike Stark at the recent CPAC convention, claims he did not know the facts about O'Keefe's pimp outfit. (See video below.)
That quote is from the Smirking Chimp (link here)
This story is getting some cyber traction...
COMMENT #57 [Permalink]
...
Big Dan
said on 3/2/2010 @ 9:36 am PT...
You know what's funny? Isn't Patterico whining for the full video of Breitbart to be released, but not the full ACORN video?
COMMENT #58 [Permalink]
...
BlueHawk
said on 3/2/2010 @ 9:50 am PT...
Big Dan @57
I was just finished catching up on Patty's comedy from earlier....when you stated what I saw too.
Why isn't Patty asking for Breitbart to release his whole vids too ?
It's really telling that Patty insists that only Stark release unedited video, but he ignores Breitbart edited con job.
Patty seems to be just a self serving dis-informationist. He's only here to muddy the discussion and sling unfounded shit.
Ipso facto; Patty = Troll
COMMENT #59 [Permalink]
...
TLV
said on 3/2/2010 @ 9:55 am PT...
Remember when the police or the "nut squad in the white coats" or some other kind soul would gently take the screaming wacko from the town square and make sure he or she was put in a safe place?
COMMENT #60 [Permalink]
...
Big Dan
said on 3/2/2010 @ 9:59 am PT...
Patterico = Breitbart spokesman
Breitbart = O'Keefe spokesman
The other day when I said O'Keefe had to ask his parole officer for permission to go to CPAC to accept an award, Patterico said not to believe Olbermann, assuming I got that from Olbermann.
Patterico said: "(Also, O'Keefe had to get permission from his parole officers to accept his award at CPAC.) - Uh, no he didn't. Don't believe everything you hear on Olbermann's rantshow.
https://bradblog.com/?p=7710#comment-420453
I then pointed out this article to Patterico, good thing I cut/pasted the ENTIRE article in a previous Brad Blog comment:
Bustin' loose: O’Keefe wrestles with parole officer to make CPAC
By: Nikki Schwab and Tara Palmeri
Washington Examiner
02/17/10 8:46 AM EST
Thanks to the courts, he’s stuck in Jersey. But conservative filmmaker James O’Keefe is desperately trying to claw his way to the Conservative Political Action Conference.
O’Keefe told Yeas & Nays he’s in the process of petitioning his parole officer to let him cross state lines to make the big event Thursday where he will be awarded the “XPAC Annual Award for Impact” for cracking ACORN with his pimp suit and, of course, his most recent attempt at high jinks in the office of Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La.
“We’re having this e-mail exchange right now, actually,” O’Keefe said about his correspondence with his parole officer.
O’Keefe isn’t on complete lockdown — he did spend Presidents Day on the ski slopes of New Jersey. But for a trip to the District for CPAC to join his cohort Hannah Giles, he’ll have to beg.
“But hopefully I should be able to make it down to D.C. on Thursday,” he said.
If he can’t make an appearance, he plans to do a prerecorded or satellite interview with Town Hall’s Kevin McCullough that will appear Friday.
But even if he does make an appearance, don’t expect him to be raging at the concerts, comedy shows or bar parties.
“That’s just not my scene,” O’Keefe said.
Read more at the Washington Examiner:
Well that article now looks like this at the same exact link, notice the differences:
Bustin' loose: O’Keefe wrestles with parole officer to make CPAC
By: Nikki Schwab and Tara Palmeri
Washington Examiner
02/17/10 8:46 AM EST
Update: O'Keefe is on pre-trial release, not parole, as he told Yeas & Nays last week. "I've called it a parole officer, but she's actually from 'pre-trial services,'" O'Keefe said. His officer is from the Pretrial Services Agency District of New Jersey.
Thanks to the courts, he’s stuck in Jersey. But conservative filmmaker James O’Keefe is desperately trying to claw his way to the Conservative Political Action Conference.
O’Keefe told Yeas & Nays he’s in the process of petitioning his parole officer to let him cross state lines to make the big event Thursday where he will be awarded the “XPAC Annual Award for Impact” for cracking ACORN with his pimp suit and, of course, his most recent attempt at high jinks in the office of Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La.
“We’re having this e-mail exchange right now, actually,” O’Keefe said about his correspondence with his parole officer.
O’Keefe isn’t on complete lockdown — he did spend Presidents Day on the ski slopes of New Jersey. But for a trip to the District for CPAC to join his cohort Hannah Giles, he’ll have to beg.
“But hopefully I should be able to make it down to D.C. on Thursday,” he said.
If he can’t make an appearance, he plans to do a prerecorded or satellite interview with Town Hall’s Kevin McCullough that will appear Friday.
But even if he does make an appearance, don’t expect him to be raging at the concerts, comedy shows or bar parties.
“That’s just not my scene,” O’Keefe said.
Read more at the Washington Examiner:
At the same exact link:
http://www.washingtonexa...28327.html#ixzz0h2ijxqlN
Here's my original comment with the original cut/paste of the entire article that has changed:
https://bradblog.com/?p=7710#comment-420457
I received no reply from Patterico on this. Patterico wants an apology from Olbermann on quoting O'Keefe himself!!!
Any comments on this Patterico???
I think Patterico has to apologize to Olbermann!
COMMENT #61 [Permalink]
...
Jeannie Dean
said on 3/2/2010 @ 10:16 am PT...
CamusRebel @#51 re: Patterico ~
Not only the misdirection w/ our Lasagna , but from the same nasty pissy-fanny who raged in here refering to Brad as "liar Friedman", called us all "idiots" and "too stupid or dishonest to understand" the rather basic evidence presented here, then honked on like a crazy person about the kind of "treatment" we all deserve from him for believing facts...
...and "Patty" and "foolish" are the uncivil attacks that get his britches zippered?
Wow. Sensitive lil' sociopath.
COMMENT #62 [Permalink]
...
Jeannie Dean
said on 3/2/2010 @ 10:19 am PT...
...and I mean that in the most respectful sense of the word.
COMMENT #63 [Permalink]
...
Ernest A. Canning
said on 3/2/2010 @ 11:10 am PT...
Patterico, aka Mark Frey, wrote @30
He and Giles said they were setting up a house for Giles and underaged girls to turn tricks and give the money to O'Keefe for his Congressional campaign.
______________________
Facts:
O'Keefe, who went in dressed like a college student, said nothing of the sort. He first told the ACORN workers that he was a law student and that he intended to run for student government.
He never said he was a pimp. His motives, he implied, were benevolent; that he was just trying to help Giles get away from "this guy." Later, well into the charade, O'Keefe identifies "this guy" as "a pimp." But he does not identify himself as a "pimp."
Aside from the one occasion where he slipped in the word "tricks," both O'Keefe and Giles suggest benevolent motives in trying to provide the young girls from El Salvador "shelter," though they offer an occasional, ambiguous "putting them to work."
O'Keefe never said he would solicit customers for Giles or anyone else. He never said that either Giles or anyone else would either be working for him or giving him money for setting up the house.
In fact, at p. 37 of the 46-page transcript, O'Keefe said "I am not going to be with the house. That is why I am trying to get her independent."
At p. 40, after repeatedly stressing his benevolent motives and Giles's "independence," O'Keefe slips in the word "we" for the first time, at a point when the ACORN worker appears to be addressing Giles. (According to Harshbarger, the ACORN workers thought of Giles as a client and were focused more on what she was saying).
O'Keefe: "We gonna use a lot of the money that we are getting."
ACORN worker: “You don’t want to use all of it?”
O'Keefe: "No. We want to use a lot of cash in my campaign."
ACORN worker: “But what I am saying is like put maybe 200 in the bank every week.”
Giles: "Cause like all of a sudden, cause I can’t put all my cash…I could not part with it.”
It is nothing short of disingenuous for an attorney to scour a 46 page transcript in order to parse a few disparate sentences containing the words "underage girls," "tricks," "we" and "money" and to then reassemble these unconnected words and phrases into "posed as a pimp" after O'Keefe, by his attire and by his words, uttered over the first 39 pages, repeatedly suggested that he had accompanied Giles to ACORN solely in the capacity of a friend. But such is the level of the verbal gymnastics the would-be slayers of ACORN are prepared to go.
These were not law students asked to spot the issues at a bar exam, Mr. Frey. They were low level, part time employees who were duped the right wing con-artist you extol as heroes at your site.
In the meantime, Mr. Frey, you still haven't answered a basic question.
As a Deputy DA for LA County, don't you think it creates a bit of an ethical dilemma for you to be defending O'Keefe and Giles when your office should be investigating these two for a possible criminal violation of CA Penal Code Section 632?
COMMENT #64 [Permalink]
...
Ernest A. Canning
said on 3/2/2010 @ 1:02 pm PT...
Apropos my last comment,
The word "pimp" is defined as "a person, esp. a man, who solicits customers for a prostitute or a brothel, usually in return for a share of the earnings; pander; procurer."
Neither O'Keefe nor Giles so much as hinted that O'Keefe would "solicit customers" for Giles, let alone that he would do so "in return for a share of the earnings."
Also, Mr. Frey, in a separate piece, you accused Brad Friedman of "lying" when he said that we do not have the "complete" transcripts.
We only have the word of accused federal felon O'Keefe and his serial dissembling employer, Breitbart, that these are the complete, unedited audios and transcripts.
However, the Baltimore transcript only records conversations between these two scam artists and two ACORN employees. Former MA AG Harshbarger, who, in addition to reviewing the dubbed videos and reading the transcripts, interviewed numerous ACORN employees, says that Giles & O'Keefe actually spoke to three ACORN employees at the Baltimore office.
The first, a receptionist, is not included in the transcript. Per Harshbarger, they told that receptionist that Giles was a "dancer" and O'Keefe a college student.
From the method this pair of con artists employed at other ACORN & ACORN Housing offices, I suspect that this conversation in which they represented that Giles was a "dancer" probably occurred over the phone when they called to set up the appointment.
The "dancer" representation helps to explain why, during the first 14 pages of transcripts, the ACORN employees had such a Devil of a time trying to figure out just what "business" Giles was in.
COMMENT #65 [Permalink]
...
camusrebel
said on 3/2/2010 @ 1:13 pm PT...
Sometimes I balk at commentin when there r over 60 already as it will soon be buried and forgotten...but, just checked out not too Brightbart's blog BigGovernment. They got an article about how ACORN is like the KKK. Just flat out hysterical stuff. But it is suprisingly easy to comment so I went on a bender of a positive tirade under "JohnnyO". Not sure any there know who Camus was, plus it's my stage name for my rock star alter-ego.
COMMENT #66 [Permalink]
...
Chris Hooten
said on 3/2/2010 @ 1:19 pm PT...
Since Patterico is NOT Breitbart, why is he going to such lengths to defend him? And really, a deputy DA should be a lot more convincing than that. Or at least more FACTUAL than that, sheesh.
COMMENT #67 [Permalink]
...
Ernest A. Canning
said on 3/2/2010 @ 2:23 pm PT...
Oops, allow me to make a correction. Patterico = "Patrick Frey;" not "Mark Frey," as I erroneously stated.
Sorry about getting your name wrong, Patrick.
COMMENT #68 [Permalink]
...
David Lasagna
said on 3/2/2010 @ 5:06 pm PT...
Hey my compadres--
Please everyone try to resist getting your foofs all blingeed up in a bunchdrop, but having gone through the Baltimore transcript I think I understand where Breitbart and his supporters are coming from. Maybe.(Brad, am not).
I tried reading the thing just trying to imagine how Breitbart might take it in. Does anybody else out there do this? I mean it's a little risky cuz you have to let go a bit of your own reality but I think it can be helpful in trying to understand the "other's" point of view. And my goodness are we making Breitbart and Patterico into "others".
If you read it from a certain viewpoint you can make up that of course those Acorn workers knew they were a pimp and a prostitute and look how much they were trying to help them.
(BRAD, AM NOT!!!)I'm not saying this is any kind of correct interpretation of reality. It's certainly not mine. The point is(Braaaaaad, ammm nooootttTT)I'm just saying I think I can see it from their perspective. I think you have to do some pretty fancy dancing to get there. But fancy dancing in pursuit of evermore extravagant Magic Thinking is what we, as a nation, do best.
(Jeeze Louise, I hope and pray my beloved brethren and sistren are not having multiple shits over fists fits)
There's more of course but I'm sleep deprived from last night's Brad Binge. And I hope I can resist my Bradophilia addiction tonight. Not promising though.
COMMENT #69 [Permalink]
...
David Lasagna
said on 3/2/2010 @ 5:19 pm PT...
Note to Patterico--sorry if my last comment short-circuits our attempts at civil dialogue I just had to jump in. I've read the one transcript. I've printed out three others. I've looked at your blog. (Gotta give you credit on that though I have large problems with your conclusions). Read a bunch more of the Harshbarger report.
May not be good for much more tonight. Had a long, sad, sleep-deprived day. Want to read the rest of the transripts. Maybe we can pick it up soon. Here or on a subsequent post.
Oh and by the by CamusRebel had the call exactly right. I was referring to Breitbart. Did you really think I was talking about you?
For me calling someone a fool is not much of a thing. We're all fools. I'm certainly one and can be a major asshole to boot. But I try to compensate/correct for that by keeping up with my critical self-examination homework. That's my complaint about Breitbart. He looks like he's skipping that part. Bart.
(So you're a DA.? You overlegalized rascal.)
COMMENT #70 [Permalink]
...
Patterico
said on 3/2/2010 @ 6:04 pm PT...
Friedman you lying sociopath:
You wrote Hoyt and said O'Keefe has refused to release unedited AUDIO.
Have you retracted?
Have you written Hoyt to tell him you got this wrong?
I love Ernie's claim that someone who sets up a house for underage girls to turn tricks and turn over the money to him is not a pimp.
You don't learn much about the criminal world in your little worker's comp practice, do you?
COMMENT #71 [Permalink]
...
BlueHawk
said on 3/2/2010 @ 6:08 pm PT...
David Lasagna @68
My hat's off to you for your effort at being conciliatory and fair-minded...it is a noble endeavor.
BUT!....come on David...we're talking about a contrived illusion (O'Keefe's vid)...of course if we do the mentally contortionist gymnastics that you did then almost any conclusion will seem feasible...WMD in Iraq, the easter bunny and the tooth fairy will seem reasonable inferences.
That's the point David...the truth shouldn't require mental contortions to be seen. If truth is not apparent with plain open minded consideration...then it's not truth but a contrived illusion.
Again...you're a solid guy for trying to see the Acorn vids through "their" point of view...but David their point of view is skewed...Their point of view isn't objective. Seems you put on their painted goggles.
You can't drop objectivity David in an attempt to perceive truth. You took off your truth detector (objectivity) and put on their blinders....as it were.
COMMENT #72 [Permalink]
...
Patterico
said on 3/2/2010 @ 6:14 pm PT...
Lasagna,
Sorry about the incorrect assumption. Check my site for extensive quotes from transcripts showing O'Keefe seeking to set up a house for Giles and underage girls to turn tricks and turn the proceeds over to O'Keefe for his Congressional campaign.
Yes, he described himself as helping get Hannah away from an abusive pimp. In essence, he portrayed himself as "the good pimp."
But still a pimp. Not as someone trying to get her and the underage girls out of the life, as Stark and Friedman and Boehlert claim.
By the way, pimps often claim to be (or even are) their prostitutes' "boyfriends."
They're still pimps.
COMMENT #73 [Permalink]
...
BlueHawk
said on 3/2/2010 @ 6:14 pm PT...
Patterico @ 70
You constantly call Brad a liar...yet you offer no smoking gun. I would like to see some evidence. Your mendacious rants and epithets don't do much for your case.
Evidence sir...
Didn't you claim to be an DA in Cali ?
Seems building a case to support your point of view would be second nature to you.
So far you've miserably failed.
You SEEM like an angry individual in a double wide with a snaggle toothed wife and a squeaky screen door.
Let's see you display some of those district DA skills there son...evidence.
COMMENT #74 [Permalink]
...
Patterico
said on 3/2/2010 @ 6:32 pm PT...
Evidence of numerous misstatements by Friedman here.
More here.
Evidence that Starks's video tells a lie here.
That first link is especially replete with evidence.
Lasagna, I am amused that you find it such a strain to conclude that O'Keefe and Giles posed as pimp and prostitute and that ACORN knew it and tried to help them anyway.
But it's not easy to test one's comfortable assumptions, and you seem to be trying. I admire that.
When you have reviewed the transcripts, tell me whether O'Keefe ever claimed that he was seeking to set up a house for Giles and underage girls to turn tricks and turn the proceeds over to O'Keefe for his Congressional campaign.
The first link in this comment has extensive quotes to help you along. For example:
O’Keefe: But, one of the things I was one of the things we also wanna do um one of my goals you asked you asked do you know how you wanna do this, I think one of the goals is not only can Eden protect some of these 13, 14, 15 year-old girls
Theresa (ACORN) Yeah.
O’Keefe: coming over from El Salvador. In addition to protecting them and getting their feet on the ground so that they can you know perform the tricks and you know learn the how LA prostitution scene is I was also wanting to um use some of the this is very lucrative and potentially we can use a lot of the money we’re getting from the underaged girls from El Salvador and use some of the money for campaign one day
. . . .
O’Keefe: We’re bringing these girls from overseas.
Hannah (Eden) Well, they’re here.
O’Keefe: But, we are gonna take a part of the profit and I intend to use the profit
Theresa (ACORN): Right.
O’Keefe: From the tricks the girls perform
Theresa (ACORN): Right.
O’Keefe: To fund my political campaign.
Theresa (ACORN): Right.
I don't even have to strain to read that as O'Keefe claiming claimed that he was seeking to set up a house for Giles and underage girls to turn tricks and turn the proceeds over to O'Keefe for his Congressional campaign.
COMMENT #75 [Permalink]
...
Ernest A. Canning
said on 3/2/2010 @ 6:33 pm PT...
Patterico wrote @70
Friedman you lying sociopath
_________________________
Psychological projection is the unconscious act of denial of a person's own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, such as to the weather, the government, a tool, or to other people. Thus, it involves imagining or projecting that others have those feelings."
Fits you like a tee, Patrick.
By the way, my 32 years of practice has included business and civil litigation, appellate work, Cal OSHA defense, and workers' compensation. My first employer, a Century City business litigator, started as a U.S. attorney before he moved to the DoJ where he served under RFK and was one of the attorneys who prosecuted James Hoffa.
I graduated law school 4th in a class of 276. How'd you do?
I'll stand by my observations as to the level of perfidy required to extract these out of context statements to try to build a case for "posing as a pimp" in the face of the extraordinary efforts your hero, an accused federal felon, made to suggest that he was nothing more than Giles's friend.
Take pot shots at my qualifications on criminal law all you want. A former MA AG and Brooklyn prosecutors who studied the infamous tapes for four months found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing by any of the ACORN workers.
Your personal attacks on Brad Friedman remind me of the old saw: If the law is with you, argue the law. If the facts are with you, argue the facts. If you have neither, attack your opponent!
In the meantime, Mr. Frey, you still haven't answered my question. "As a Deputy DA for LA County, don't you think it creates a bit of an ethical dilemma for you to be defending O'Keefe and Giles when your office should be investigating these two for a possible criminal violation of CA Penal Code Section 632?"
COMMENT #76 [Permalink]
...
BlueHawk
said on 3/2/2010 @ 6:44 pm PT...
Patterico @74
Let's say O'Keefe was charged with pimping.
Would you as a presumed DA, be willing to prosecute O'Keefe as a pimp with the evidence you presented in comment 74 ?
I also find it odd that you provided zero evidence of Brad being a liar...The screed posted at your site isn't evidence of lying. It's simply a retaliatory mudsling that again has zero smoking gun evidence of a lie. That would fail in a court of law too Patterico.
Patterico are you sure you're an attorney...or do you just play one on the internet ?
COMMENT #77 [Permalink]
...
Patterico
said on 3/2/2010 @ 6:46 pm PT...
"We did not interview the employees captured on video, since we were satisfied there was no question that the visits occurred and the comments were made. . . . Hence, all our knowledge about the videos is largely circumstantial and secondhand." --- from the report by paid ACORN consultant Scott Harshbarger
COMMENT #78 [Permalink]
...
Patterico
said on 3/2/2010 @ 6:48 pm PT...
Tonja: No you have to pay taxes on the money you make
O’Keefe: Is there any way around that though
Tonja: Yeah don’t file them and you continue doing cash
COMMENT #79 [Permalink]
...
Patterico
said on 3/2/2010 @ 6:49 pm PT...
James: So, I can be the one who ah, I have documentation right? So, I can, I can be the one basically put up the house for it and she can perform tricks in the house.
Acorn 3: Yep.
James: Okay, and well all those girls too? All those, there’s like 10 girls? There’s 10 El Salvadorians.
. . . .
Acorn 4: If you but the home, you have no knowledge of what’s goin on in that home. He’s just [garble] the landlord.
I. I t, say that again.
Acorn 3: You have no knowledge of whats goin on you just the landlord.
Acorn 4: You have no knowledge of what’s goin on, I’m just keeping it real – your just the landlord.
James: I’m just the landlord.
Acorn 4: You’re just the landlord.
James: But, but, but…
Acorn 3: We know she’s your girl friend, but we’re talking about your career. How far you trying to go?
James: I’m using the money that she’s getting, you know what I mean?
Acorn 3: Okay. But you don’t know where its coming from.
Hannah: It’s cash.
James: I, I, I personally know where its coming from.
Acorn 3: Right, but when the police ask you – you don’t know where its coming from – that’s what we’re trying to tell you
James: Alright.
Acorn 3: We’re looking out for you.
. . . .
Hannah: And I want him to be successful and why I’m working so hard and bringing these girls in so when he does run for office he has unlimited funds.
COMMENT #80 [Permalink]
...
Patterico
said on 3/2/2010 @ 6:50 pm PT...
Tonja: so the type of business okay … the type of business of service you provide let me make sure there is a code for it okay
O’Keefe: A code for prostitution?
Tonja: Well, yeah I have to have a name and a code number.
and this:
Tonja: they under sixteen so you don’t worry about that, but on the other part of the form you can use them as a dependents because they live in your house they are under 16 and they are living in your house. Well you live in a boat but because you are taking care of them so you can use them as a dependent
O’Keefe: What if they are going to be making money because they are performing tricks too
Tonja: but if they making money and they are underage then you shouldn’t be letting anybody know anyway
and
O’Keefe: we want to use a lot of the money that we are getting
Shira: you don’t want to use all of it
O’Keefe: No I am saying we want to use a lot of the cash for my campaign
COMMENT #81 [Permalink]
...
BlueHawk
said on 3/2/2010 @ 6:51 pm PT...
Patterico has succesfully (for the time being) taken the spotlight here off of Breitbart, O'Keefe and the NYTimes and turned on Brad...
Hurling false accusations at Brad to deflect the Breitbart-O'Keefe crimes...yes crimes.
Patterico has effectively turned this thread into an offensive against Brad's credibility...and he's done it with accusation, nefarious word play and conjecture...nothing solid, nothing real.
A classic right-wing tactic...
COMMENT #82 [Permalink]
...
Patterico
said on 3/2/2010 @ 6:54 pm PT...
Ernie,
Tell us the context for this:
O’Keefe: We’re bringing these girls from overseas.
Hannah (Eden) Well, they’re here.
O’Keefe: But, we are gonna take a part of the profit and I intend to use the profit
Theresa (ACORN): Right.
O’Keefe: From the tricks the girls perform
Theresa (ACORN): Right.
O’Keefe: To fund my political campaign.
Theresa (ACORN): Right.
Me, I read that as O'Keefe telling someone at ACORN that he's bringing girls from overseas, and plans to take a part of the profit from the tricks the girls perform to fund his political campaign.
COMMENT #83 [Permalink]
...
Patterico
said on 3/2/2010 @ 6:56 pm PT...
"Hurling false accusations at Brad . . ."
Ain't nothing false about them.
I note you offer no specifics.
Me, I offer links, links, and more links. Quotes, quotes, and more quotes.
Evidence.
COMMENT #84 [Permalink]
...
Patterico
said on 3/2/2010 @ 7:01 pm PT...
Here is a lie:
“Giles Admits O’Keefe, Breitbart ACORN ‘Pimp’ Story was a Lie: ‘That Was B-Roll, Purely B-Roll’.”
If you are not already familiar with Friedman's dishonest practices, you would think that Hannah Giles had said: "Yes, the ACORN pimp story was a lie" or words to that effect.
Instead, she gave a statement about the videos, and Friedman used that statement as (flimsy and insufficient) evidence that O'Keefe and Breitbart had lied.
But she never "admitted" that they lied.
But Friedman said they did.
I'm not the one engaging in slippery wordplay here. That's Friedman's shtick.
On Twitter he did the same to me. Claimed that I had "admitted" that Breitbart had lied or engaged in journalistic malpractice.
That was a goddamned lie as I never admitted any such thing.
Friedman is a liar.
Pure and simple.
COMMENT #85 [Permalink]
...
BlueHawk
said on 3/2/2010 @ 7:03 pm PT...
Patterico @83
"Hurling false accusations at Brad . . ."
Ain't nothing false about them.
I note you offer no specifics.
Me, I offer links, links, and more links. Quotes, quotes, and more quotes.
Evidence.
I offer no specifics..because I made no allegations. I'm challenging your false claims...which mean you carry the burden of proof.
Are you sure you're an attorney ?
Because if you're not then you would be a....LIAR
Brad's credibility is fine with me...I've read and checked his articles for a while here...the man is journalistically impeccable.
Sorry kid...but a link to your site isn't evidence...it's self promotion.
COMMENT #86 [Permalink]
...
Brad Friedman
said on 3/2/2010 @ 7:12 pm PT...
Patterico @ 70:
Friedman you lying sociopath:
You wrote Hoyt and said O'Keefe has refused to release unedited AUDIO.
Have you retracted?
Wow, speaking of sociopaths, have you bothered to share the context of the comment for the claim you make above? Like the sentence that came before or after it in the letter you cite? Or have you just continued to quote the entire phrase out of context, under the presumption that your readers --- who don't seem to have much interest in facts and stuff --- would just buy it?
Feel free to share the context and see if your charge still holds up. I'll wait. Then, when/if I have time, I'll be happy to share what you didn't (presuming others here don't do it first, while I'm busy trying to get accountable for liars, scoundrels and scofflaws, while you're here making excuses for them.)
COMMENT #87 [Permalink]
...
BlueHawk
said on 3/2/2010 @ 7:13 pm PT...
My mendacious Patterico @84
It's telling that you omit the context of the...
"“Giles Admits O’Keefe, Breitbart ACORN ‘Pimp’ Story was a Lie: ‘That Was B-Roll, Purely B-Roll’.”
article.
The story my friend was about whether or not O'Keefe was dressed in his clown pimp suit while sitting at ACORN offices...he wasn't; the pimp suit footage was shot after the fact and made to seem like O'Keefe was dressed like that while meeting with ACORN employees...hence Hannah Giles correctly called it B-roll footage...which made Breitbart and O'Keefe liars for saying O'Keefe was dressed like a pimp for the whole shoot...they lied he wasn't.
Are you sure you're an attorney ?
Do you actually make a living practicing law ?...
seriously ?
COMMENT #88 [Permalink]
...
Patterico
said on 3/2/2010 @ 7:18 pm PT...
The context is that when your political opponents make mistakes you call them lies. When you make mistakes you call them "typos." When the New York Times says something you deem misleading you call for a retraction. When you say something that is flatly false you do not lift a finger to correct it.
If James O'Keefe hoaxed people by failing to correct Doocy, you are hoaxing people by failing to correct your errors.
COMMENT #89 [Permalink]
...
Patterico
said on 3/2/2010 @ 7:25 pm PT...
The story my friend was about whether or not O'Keefe was dressed in his clown pimp suit while sitting at ACORN offices...he wasn't; the pimp suit footage was shot after the fact and made to seem like O'Keefe was dressed like that while meeting with ACORN employees...hence Hannah Giles correctly called it B-roll footage...which made Breitbart and O'Keefe liars for saying O'Keefe was dressed like a pimp for the whole shoot...they lied he wasn't.
One should not claim someone "admitted" that a person lied unless they actually "admitted" that the person lied.
But Friedman does that, because Friedman is a liar.
I love how it works here. People demand evidence. I provide scads, and it is declared non-evidence because it is set forth at my site.
You would never accept such a breathtakingly dishonest argument from a conservative, yet you happily make it yourself.
COMMENT #90 [Permalink]
...
BlueHawk
said on 3/2/2010 @ 7:28 pm PT...
Patterico....All you've done is taken out of context words...applied those out of context words to your desperate theory (that Brad's lying) and called it your "proof".
All that's left now is for you to chest thump and do a touchdown dance....
COMMENT #91 [Permalink]
...
BlueHawk
said on 3/2/2010 @ 7:33 pm PT...
Patterico @89
O'Keefe and Breitbart said that O'Keefe was dressed in his pimp outfit while visiting the ACORN offices; their accomplice Hannah Giles said he wasn't, She called the pimp outfit footage "B-roll" footage that was shot after the fact. Hannah Giles made O'Keefe and Breitbart out to be liars...Brad simply reported it.
Seems your venom is missplaced there kid...Hannah Giles outted O'Keefe and Breitbart as liars.
Yet you're angry at Brad...
Are you sure you're a lawyer ?
COMMENT #92 [Permalink]
...
BlueHawk
said on 3/2/2010 @ 7:39 pm PT...
Patterico has ignored the direct question in comment 76.
duly noted
COMMENT #93 [Permalink]
...
Patterico
said on 3/2/2010 @ 7:44 pm PT...
See, I argued that Friedman lied when he wrote to Hoyt that O'Keefe had not released the unedited AUDIO.
Then Friedman confirmed that he got this wrong --- although he didn't say he had lied. He said it was a "typo."
Using his tactics, I get to say that he admitted he lied.
COMMENT #94 [Permalink]
...
Patterico
said on 3/2/2010 @ 7:45 pm PT...
BlueHawk has ignored all my evidence.
Noted.
COMMENT #95 [Permalink]
...
Patterico
said on 3/2/2010 @ 7:48 pm PT...
Let's say O'Keefe was charged with pimping.
Would you as a presumed DA, be willing to prosecute O'Keefe as a pimp with the evidence you presented in comment 74 ?
No. He was PRETENDING to be a pimp, genius.
COMMENT #96 [Permalink]
...
BlueHawk
said on 3/2/2010 @ 8:00 pm PT...
Patterico...@95
You mean like you're pretending to be a lawyer.
Don't you see the ludicrous nature of your position here ?
You wouldn't prosecute a "pretend pimp" who was dressed normally by the way...the pimp outfit footage was shot later.
But you want to condemn ACORN for not seeing through O'Keefe's sham; and pretend that ACORN accommodates pimps and hos all the time.
And then smear Brad as a liar for reporting the story.
I'm not a genius as you allude Patterico...I do however have a trained nose for the bullshit you're slinging here.
But please continue...I have the time to continue handing you your ass.
COMMENT #97 [Permalink]
...
Lora
said on 3/2/2010 @ 8:12 pm PT...
Dear Patterico (May I call you Pat?)
Slam-dunk by Ernest Canning! O'Keefe did NOT represent himself as a pimp!
Not that Ernest needs any more support for his comments as they stand entirely on their own, but Pat, since you had already inspired me to do yet a little more research I will present EVEN MORE evidence that, in the Baltimore office at least, according to the Baltimore transcript, Mr. James O'Keefe assuredly did NOT represent himself as a pimp.
From the Baltimore Transcript (emphasis added)
page 2:
James: Well I am doing pretty well for myself but I am coming to talk to you about my girlfriend, my girl Kenya here, we have kind of a unique life situation...
page 3:
Kenya: He is going to be going to Johns Hopkins for Graduate school. Graduate school, right?
Shira: Congratulations.
James: Yep, law.
page 4:
James: Well its not so much, well, she is in a situation where she is in a unique line of work. I am running for campaign I am running for student government.
Hello? Pat? You were wrong, weren't ya? Now show us you are an honest guy, unlike that crazy "liberal" NYT, and ADMIT IT.
(doo dee doo dum doo dee doo....doo dee doo dee DEET --- dee doodle doodle...)
COMMENT #98 [Permalink]
...
Patterico
said on 3/2/2010 @ 8:21 pm PT...
Lora,
Please try to keep up. I have covered this ground already.
Ironically, you are engaged in the exact type of selective reading that I have been falsely accused of being engaged in.
You left out this:
Tonja: so the type of business okay … the type of business of service you provide let me make sure there is a code for it okay
O’Keefe: A code for prostitution?
Tonja: Well, yeah I have to have a name and a code number.
and this:
Tonja: they under sixteen so you don’t worry about that, but on the other part of the form you can use them as a dependents because they live in your house they are under 16 and they are living in your house. Well you live in a boat but because you are taking care of them so you can use them as a dependent
O’Keefe: What if they are going to be making money because they are performing tricks too
Tonja: but if they making money and they are underage then you shouldn’t be letting anybody know anyway
and
O’Keefe: we want to use a lot of the money that we are getting
Shira: you don’t want to use all of it
O’Keefe: No I am saying we want to use a lot of the cash for my campaign
See, he represented himself as Kenya's girlfriend, and as an aspiring student politician. Who was trying to save his girlfriend from an abusive pimp. And --- and here's the part you're missing --- and who intended to set up a house where his girlfriend and underaged girls could turn tricks and give him some of the proceeds for his campaign.
Friedman and Boehlert tell you about the "boyfriend" and "student" and "save her from pimp" part --- and let you imagine that the rest of it was just manufactured.
But it's there, in the unedited audio and the transcripts based on the unedited audio. You can listen to one and follow along with the other. Friedman hasn't done that because he doesn't care. He is out to protect ACORN using any lie, however transparent, he can get a willing audience to follow.
But he can't change the facts. Which I am pushing in your faces. And which most of you will ignore --- but which some will see. Making them wonder why Friedman has lied to them.
COMMENT #99 [Permalink]
...
Patterico
said on 3/2/2010 @ 8:22 pm PT...
Obviously he represented himself as Kenya's boyfriend, not girlfriend.
If I were Andrew Breitbart, Friedman would make this his next headline. "BREITBART CAN'T EVEN DECIDE IF O'KEEFE IS MAN OR WOMAN!!!!! 16 ARTICLES ON SAME ISSUE TO FOLLOW!!!!!"
COMMENT #100 [Permalink]
...
BlueHawk
said on 3/2/2010 @ 8:29 pm PT...
Lora @97
Nice try there...Patterico isn't man enough to graciously concede a valid point.
Yours got to the heart of the matter...yet Patterico ignores it. Patterico selectively ignores the real issue and creates illusory issues to make a fake point.
COMMENT #101 [Permalink]
...
Patterico
said on 3/2/2010 @ 8:34 pm PT...
The word "pimp" is defined as "a person, esp. a man, who solicits customers for a prostitute or a brothel, usually in return for a share of the earnings; pander; procurer." --- Ernie
I'm not looking at dictionary definitions, my fine feathered friend. I'm looking at common understandings of what is mean by being a pimp --- which, as it happens, is quite consistent with the California Penal Code:
[A]ny person who, knowing another person is a prostitute, lives or derives support or maintenance in whole or in part from the earnings or proceeds of the person’s prostitution, or from money loaned or advanced to or charged against that person . . . is guilty of pimping.
Cal. Penal Code 266h(a).
COMMENT #102 [Permalink]
...
Patterico
said on 3/2/2010 @ 8:37 pm PT...
I am not gracious enough to concede half-truths, no.
I am not trying to convince you, BlueHawk. You are unconvincable. I am using you as a foil to demonstrate how ridiculous the positions of the commenters here are.
I have succeeded.
COMMENT #103 [Permalink]
...
David Lasagna
said on 3/2/2010 @ 8:50 pm PT...
Dear Everyone,
There's just no fucking way I can do this tonight and in this format. I need everyone in the same room, an extremely less tired head, to have given all this a whole lot more thought, and for us to have hours together and lots of wine. I can only dabble tonight, sooo.....
Dear Bluehawk @ 71--
Don't think you(anyone?)is getting where I'm coming from yet on this. You say--
Their point of view isn't objective. Seems you put on their painted goggles.
You can't drop objectivity David in an attempt to perceive truth. You took off your truth detector (objectivity) and put on their blinders....as it were.
How to deconstruct this...
1. Yes, their point of view isn't objective, but I'm with Zinn on this--no one's view really is. We all have our biases. This does not mean there are not discernible truths. This does mean that certain ways of looking at things/events gets closer to the heart of any particular matter than others. This doesn't mean that some viewpoints are extremely wide of the mark or even completely cuckoo. But even if someone's view is wide of the mark, I think there can be legitimate reasons why they might hold their view. To dismiss the view, I believe, translates into dismissing the person. Who is going to go along with that? Probably no one happily, or without a fight. This I suspect is one of the factors contributing to the increasing acrimony of debate nationally.
2. Yes, I put on their painted goggles. That's exactly what I did. But from my point of view I didn't drop objectivity. I sorta expanded it.
I'll say it again--I did not embrace this worldview. I simply, I think, recognized it as one. I repeat, I did not embrace it.
In fact, I have a somewhat different view of the transcripts of any I've seen so far. Maybe someday I'll even get to that part.
3. So no, I'll disagree again as I did with Brad when he said I've been conned--I don't think I took off my truth detector. I think I found a larger setting.
4. I'm trying to say I think I see how they're putting it together. Maybe if I get really smart I can break it down for you. What an effort that would be. Holy shit. We'll see.
COMMENT #104 [Permalink]
...
BlueHawk
said on 3/2/2010 @ 8:50 pm PT...
You see Lora ?
You laid it out really well @97...all Patterico calls it is a "half-truth"
And he calls others "unconvincable"
Makes one wonder if Patterico is really Breitbart...the guy is a single minded automaton hell bent on debunking this story...truth be damned.
I'm waiting for a Breitbart like meltdown....
COMMENT #105 [Permalink]
...
Lora
said on 3/2/2010 @ 8:57 pm PT...
From the NY transcript:
(emphasis added)
James: Well we have a unique situation and my uh this is my girlfriend Eden, and I apologize about her attire but uhm uhm Eden is in a unique line of work and uhm....
Volda (loan counselor) for example?
James: Uhm I dunno if you wanna tell her
Hannah (Eden): I have an extensive client base, male clients
(Uh huh. He one bad-ass pimp here, all right! /snark)
Page 14
James: The reason that don't want it to be in my name is because its her business and it is going to be all cash and I don't want to be connected to it
Page 15
James: Cause if she has a bunch of girls working in this house I don't want my name on it that is what I'm saying
[Clearly he is not pretending to be a pimp. Or if he thought he was, then he didn't pull it off. He would say it is HIS business, and that HE has a bunch of girls working in this house.]
page 17:
James: Well the reason we are rushing is because she was working for this pimp and he was very abusive
[Not: she was working for this OTHER pimp. He is NOT presenting himself as a pimp! Over and over and over again!]
I'd go on but it's past my bedtime. Pat, if you're a stand-up guy, you'll do the right thing. G'night, all.
COMMENT #106 [Permalink]
...
BlueHawk
said on 3/2/2010 @ 8:58 pm PT...
David @103
Again I understand what you attempted.
Here's why it didn't make sense.
They don't even believe the story. They created a scenario...an illusion to back up what they wanted to portray. They came from a dishonest point of view in the first place and then dishonestly presented it to infer something that it didn't say.
So you trying to be objectively honest with a situation that was born from dishonesty with dishonest intentions...well that's not intellectually compatible.
See Lora's comment at 97
COMMENT #107 [Permalink]
...
Patterico
said on 3/2/2010 @ 9:03 pm PT...
Lasagna,
You're the only person here trying to be honest. I will talk to you only.
I may use others as foils, but you're the only person even making an effort to see what I am saying.
It still amuses me how difficult it is for you to conceptualize the idea that the transcripts show O'Keefe as a guy setting up a house of prostitution, from which he intends to take profits to use for himself.
This is a little like a Democrat in the 70s talking to a Republican who says: "If I strain hard I can just barrreeeeely see how those Democrats might be convinced that Nixon has acted immorally."
Such a person would be shaking off their world view because of a respect for facts. But it would still be amusing to a disinterested outsider how hard it is for him.
COMMENT #108 [Permalink]
...
Lora
said on 3/2/2010 @ 9:10 pm PT...
Last comment: Pat: James is not presenting himself in either the NY or the Baltimore transcript as what the world in general, not lawyers or DA's, consider a pimp: Someone who has authority over a prostitute --- her clients, her money, how, when and where she works. Now I'm sure you know this. Legal parsing aside, O'Keefe did NOT, I repeat NOT, represent himself as a pimp. He represented himself as her boyfriend, as someone who was trying to help her get set up on her own, yes as someone who hoped to use some of the money she made which she said she wanted to use to help him, AND as someone who was trying to help her escape FROM a pimp. Sorry but your legal stuff just does not apply here. As Ernest said, the ACORN reps were not lawyers.
So....once more, Pat....here's your chance to show you are not a cog in a right-wing propaganda machine.
Okay, this has to be it. My coffee's gonna have to be extra strong in the morning!
COMMENT #109 [Permalink]
...
Patterico
said on 3/2/2010 @ 9:24 pm PT...
Oh, you want to talk New York, do you? I'm so glad you asked.
James: okay even if the business like of what goes on in the house
Volda (loan counselor): its a house you're buying they don't ask
Tara: we don't care they don't ask what you are going to do
Volda (loan counselor): as long as you live there
Tara: As long as you pay the mortgage
James: I have to live there
Volda (loan counselor): yeah its
James: oh
Volda (loan counselor): its got to be your primary residence
James: well she is going to live with me but we are using the house so that she can do her work
....
James: Yea well she is gonna have this business in the house with a bunch of girls coming and doing these things, performing tricks and she is going to give me the money so that I can pay the
mortgage that is how we want to work it potentially.
Volda (loan counselor): but your name is going to be on the mortgage your name is going to be
on the deed
James: but no one has to know where the money is coming from
My favorite part:
Volda (loan counselor): because they might wants to ask about it I don't think that they would go
to that length but ya know you outta say where the monies come from where they don't want to see
that money record its illegal. Because it’s not legal in NY.
James: so we gotta we gotta make
Milagros (counselor)You can't say what you do for a living because the law
Volda (loan counselor): so you say that you doing freelancing you gotta start thinking
James: okay
Volda (loan counselor): if you want it to work
Milagros (counselor)you are young you're both and make assumptions
James: well she is very honest
Milagros (counselor)Honest is not going to get you a house that is why you probably been denied
cause you probably going in saying
"Honest is not going to get you a house." --- ACORN worker.
God, I feel so bad for them!
COMMENT #110 [Permalink]
...
Ernest A. Canning
said on 3/2/2010 @ 9:29 pm PT...
Well, Patrick: To begin with, I did not research whether MD has a Penal Code section identical to CA Penal Code Section 266h. Did you?
Second, you know as well as I do that O'Keefe, throughout the first 39 pages of the transcript represented himself to simply be a college student and Giles' friend. He slipped in a technical comment about money being used in his campaign, and, I would wholeheartedly agree that if O'Keefe knowingly accepted money from a prostitute's earnings for such a purpose, a smart DA like you could prosecute him as a pimp under PC 266h.
But you know damn well that this ACORN worker is not an attorney and cannot be expected to understand O'Keefe's obtuse reference to receiving funds to equate to his being a pimp!
You want to play these legalistic games, do so with the mindless trolls who inhabit your right-wing propaganda site. Don't expect to persuade anyone with half a brain buy into your little game of parse the occasional phrase and reassemble them as "O'Keefe posed as a pimp."
Meanwhile, since you are fond of citing the pertinent provisions of the CA Penal Code, perhaps you can tell us whether your office plans top initiate an investigation of O'Keefe and Giles with respect to CA Penal Code Section 632 --- or is it your position that criminal statutes only apply to Lefties.
COMMENT #111 [Permalink]
...
David Lasagna
said on 3/2/2010 @ 9:30 pm PT...
Dear Patterico @ 74-- You say,
Lasagna, I am amused that you find it such a strain to conclude that O'Keefe and Giles posed as pimp and prostitute and that ACORN knew it and tried to help them anyway.---
I feel you, too, are attributing points of view to me that don't fit.
As a matter of fact, when I try to look at the transcripts from what I make up might be your point of view, I have no trouble at all concluding that they're posing as a pimp and prostitute and that Acorn is trying to help them.
But as I was just trying to explain to Bluehawk, your way of looking at this is not the only way there is. I can see other ways. I can see mine which has its own flavor.
There are several questions we might get to.
1. How are we taking the exact same words written on a page and coming up with different interpretations of the realities those words represent?
2. What are the relative merits or lack of merit to the different ways of interpreting the transcripts and the events they in part describe?
I'm not gonna get into it here, cuz look it's getting late again(these things often take so long to compose to get them anywhere near right)but--
For me the one transcript I've read so far surprised me with how involved, multi-colored, full of nuances, richly textured the interaction was. I don't think there's a simple one size fits everything here.
There appears to me there was a lot more going on than I hear people talking about.
It's late. I appreciate your efforts at civility. And I very much appreciate your acknowledgment of that misread. I always feel a little acknowlegment goes a long way.
And finally Patterico, though I have some sympathy for you because you're kinda alone in this venue right now and everyone's jumping on you, I think you're doing the same thing to them that they're doing to you. Dismissing everything out of hand.
I suspect you may think that you're doing painstaking deconstructions showing them the errors of their ways(as they are doing for you)but I'm not sure you're really slowing down and trying to understand where these other humans might be coming from.
I think there's another way. And I'm hoping we went at least a little bit down that path tonight.
COMMENT #112 [Permalink]
...
Patterico
said on 3/2/2010 @ 9:32 pm PT...
He represented himself as her boyfriend, as someone who was trying to help her get set up on her own, yes as someone who hoped to use some of the money she made which she said she wanted to use to help him, AND as someone who was trying to help her escape FROM a pimp. Sorry but your legal stuff just does not apply here. As Ernest said, the ACORN reps were not lawyers.
He represented himself as a banker and as her boyfriend, trying to help her escape an abusive pimp.
OH --- and as someone who wanted to help buy her a house, which she would use to turn tricks, and give him the money, which he would use for his future campaign.
Once again, you give half the story. I give all of it. And these aren't legalisms. This is a question of common decency --- especially when 13-15 year-old girls are involved.
COMMENT #113 [Permalink]
...
Ernest A. Canning
said on 3/2/2010 @ 9:37 pm PT...
Oh, and Patrick, since you chose to ignore it when I posted it on Brad's cartoon piece, I'll re-post it here so that those Brad Blog readers who don't read the other piece, can appreciate the level of your hypocrisy:
"I'm curious both you and The New York Times are so concerned about a couple of low level ACORN employees who were entrapped in the accused federal felon's deceptive "sting," yet I've seen not one word from either you or The New York Times about the sworn affidavits of former Blackwater/Xe insiders which not only alleged that Blackwater had engaged in murder, destruction of evidence, weapons smuggling, and corruption but specifically alleged that Blackwater operated a wife-swapping sex ring here in the US, and that, in Iraq, Blackwater had “young girls provide oral sex to Enterprise members in the 'Blackwater Man Camp' in exchange for one American dollar."
"Tell me, in your expert opinion, if Blackwater management arranged for young Iraqi girls to provide oral sex to its employees in exchange for $1, doesn't that make Blackwater management a gang of pimps?"
If you are so disturbed by pimps, Mr. Frey, why aren't you covering this on your blog? Why are you not calling for Congress to cut off all further Blackwater funding?
COMMENT #114 [Permalink]
...
Ernest A. Canning
said on 3/2/2010 @ 9:39 pm PT...
Patterico wrote:
He represented himself as a banker.
___________________________
What a load of crap!
COMMENT #115 [Permalink]
...
Ernest A. Canning
said on 3/2/2010 @ 9:43 pm PT...
And where's your concern for common decency, Patrick, when it comes to the young Iraqi girls who, according to the sworn affidavits of former Blackwater insiders, are not merely being turned into prostitutes but, at $1/a BJ, significantly underpaid prostitutes.
Get out of here with your pseudo morality!
COMMENT #116 [Permalink]
...
David Lasagna
said on 3/2/2010 @ 9:44 pm PT...
re: my own comment @ 103
when I said--There's just no fucking way I can do this tonight and in this format. I need everyone in the same room, an extremely less tired head, to have given all this a whole lot more thought, and for us to have hours together and lots of wine. I can only dabble tonight, sooo.....
Just read it back in the actual comment section and it's funny how different things can look there. That sounds incredibly arrogant or presumptuous, as if I could actually work this all out between everyone. Hah.
What I meant was to have anywhere near any kind of a chance to possibly begin to get an inkling of what I think I'm seeing across to anyone--I'd need all of us drunk, together, and with time on our hands. Okay, maybe not drunk so much. Just a little, maybe...
Good night.
COMMENT #117 [Permalink]
...
David Lasagna
said on 3/2/2010 @ 9:48 pm PT...
re: comment 116
sorry, too stupid
arrogant AND presumptuous
COMMENT #118 [Permalink]
...
Patterico
said on 3/2/2010 @ 9:52 pm PT...
If Blackwater had any hand in child prostitution, I decry it.
HOWEVER:
I am not throwing up phony defenses for Blackwater. My big sin in your eyes is not writing about it. Well, I am a busy man. I write about things where I see that my input will add value.
As just another blogger re-reporting the Blackwater story, I would add no value.
As someone debunking the lies of Friedman and Boehlert, I am adding considerable value. Thousands are seeing the truth from the facts I am setting forth.
Thanks for giving me the chance to reiterate this crucial distinction.
COMMENT #119 [Permalink]
...
Patterico
said on 3/2/2010 @ 9:59 pm PT...
As a matter of fact, when I try to look at the transcripts from what I make up might be your point of view, I have no trouble at all concluding that they're posing as a pimp and prostitute and that Acorn is trying to help them.
But as I was just trying to explain to Bluehawk, your way of looking at this is not the only way there is. I can see other ways. I can see mine which has its own flavor.
Can we agree on this? The only important thing is what the ACORN workers actually knew/intended.
You and I can do our best to interpret that. But WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO INTERPRET is their intent.
I posit that Giles and O'Keefe were posing as a pimp and prostitute and that Acorn was trying to help them.
As I have also said on the radio, I think that many of the ACORN workers proceeded from a benign motive: let's not discriminate against criminals, but treat them like humans too. And help them like we help everyone.
Lavelle Stewart in L.A. seemed particularly sympathetic, as she told Hannah never to give up.
Where that benign motive turned ugly was when the pair began talking about pimping out underaged girls.
And the ACORN workers continued their helpful attitude.
This is what appalled regular Americans.
And you don't have to twist yourself into some contorted mental position to understand that.
COMMENT #120 [Permalink]
...
Ernest A. Canning
said on 3/2/2010 @ 10:07 pm PT...
Patterico's dissembling:
Patterico quotes the following to Lora:
Tonja: so the type of business okay … the type of business of service you provide let me make sure there is a code for it okay
O’Keefe: A code for prostitution?
What Patterico left out:
1. Although the transcript records conversations with only two ACORN employees, Harshbarger reveals that there were three--the first being a receptionist who was told by the deceptive duo that Giles was a "dancer" and O'Keefe was a college student.
The transcript reveals the extraordinary efforts by O'Keefe and Giles to conceal just what it is that Giles does until after they secured some useful sound bites:
ACORN tax lady: They pay you with cash. And they are reporting this to the government?
Giles: No who?
O’Keefe: The clients.
Giles: My clients.
Tax lady: No the person that’s paying you.
James: The clients.
Tax lady: The job that’s paying you.
Giles: Well people pay me different things every day.
Tax lady: Well there’s a difference between having a job and having your own business. Okay, so tell me.
Giles: Well before I guess it was a job. There was this guy that people would give me money and I would give money to him. But now…I am trying to get away from that guy.
O’Keefe: I am trying to help her out; maybe give her a place to go where she can perform her work, maybe a house where she doesn’t have to get targeted by this other guy. You know what I am saying?
Tax lady: …Does the business have an ID number?
O’Keefe: No."
Tax lady: Okay. So there is no taxes and nothing being put to government so the government really knows nothing about this business?
Giles: No. They don’t know about me --- hopefully.
Tax lady: So you are just starting the business."
When this is placed in the context of their initial representation that Giles was a "dancer," you begin to understand why the ACORN tax lady is having so much trouble making head or tails about just what "business" Giles is actually in.
The transcript captures O'Keefe and Giles, whispering to one another, on how best to entrap this part-time ACORN employee into giving advice on write-offs, etc. Fourteen pages into the transcript, after these slick hustlers secure a statement that the part-time tax employee is looking for the appropriate code for Giles's business, O'Keefe blurts out, "There's a code for prostitution?" --- a word they had, until then, adroitly avoided.
Yet when they later dubbed the video with voice overs, Giles and O'Keefe used the earlier statements to suggest that they were giving tax advice for prostitution.
They used the same approach with the girls from El Salvador; stating that they wanted to provide them with "shelter." Its only after they secure statements about the possibility of claiming them as dependents that O'Keefe slips in the words "tricks."
They're all the way through their charade--at page 40 of the 46 page transcript when O'Keefe slips in the "we" with regard to the money and mentions using cash for his campaign.
And now, although O'Keefe never said that he would personally take possession of any of the proceeds of the business, Patterico, shockingly dissembles and says that O'Keefe posed as Giles' "banker."
Shame on you, Patrick.
COMMENT #121 [Permalink]
...
Patterico
said on 3/2/2010 @ 10:11 pm PT...
Patterico, shockingly dissembles and says that O'Keefe posed as Giles' "banker."
Liar. I never said that. He posed as an honest to goodness banker. At Wells Fargo.
Goddamn you're a liar. I'd love to get you on the radio where we could debate this in real time. I would eat you for breakfast.
Because you don't understand the facts.
COMMENT #122 [Permalink]
...
Ernest A. Canning
said on 3/2/2010 @ 10:13 pm PT...
So are you telling me Patrick that you never wrote about the ACORN sting at your blog until Brad Friedman and Eric Boehlert began challenging its accuracy?
And you still haven't answered my other questions:
Should Congress cut off funding for Blackwater?
Does your office intend to investigate O'Keefe and Giles for a possible violation of PC 632?
COMMENT #123 [Permalink]
...
Ernest A. Canning
said on 3/2/2010 @ 10:25 pm PT...
Patterico @121 wrote:
Patterico, shockingly dissembles and says that O'Keefe posed as Giles' "banker."
Liar. I never said that. He posed as an honest to goodness banker. At Wells Fargo.
_____________________
Patterico @112 wrote:
He represented himself as a banker and as her boyfriend, trying to help her escape an abusive pimp.
_____________________________
Oh, and Patrick, I re-read your entire post #112. You don't mention the word Wells Fargo a single time in that post.
Care to apologize? Or are you going to give me a Hoyt; stating that since you said, "He represented himself as a banker and as her boyfriend," you did not mean at the same time.
COMMENT #124 [Permalink]
...
Patterico
said on 3/2/2010 @ 10:26 pm PT...
The first post on my site that I can find that I personally wrote about ACORN was this one, criticizing the L.A. Times's coverage of the scandal.
I see many posts on the scandal before that from my guest blogger DRJ. Me, I don't too exercised about reporting day-to-day news.
I went into overdrive when I saw O'Keefe smeared by Big Media and by you assholes, yeah. That's where I add value.
COMMENT #125 [Permalink]
...
Patterico
said on 3/2/2010 @ 10:29 pm PT...
Oh, and Patrick, I re-read your entire post #112. You don't mention the word Wells Fargo a single time in that post.
hahahahahahahahaha
Goddamn you're an idiot.
No, I didn't, ERNIE. I said he was a banker.
Later, when you claimed (falsely) I had said that he was GILES'S banker (which I never did) I said, no, moron, he said he was a banker. At Wells Fargo.
THIS is your idea of a gotcha?
PLEASE, PLEASE come on the radio with me. You are so, so, very stupid. I would mop the floor with you.
Mop. The. Floor.
COMMENT #126 [Permalink]
...
Ernest A. Canning
said on 3/2/2010 @ 10:31 pm PT...
And Patrick, if you concede that O'Keefe simply posed as her "boyfriend," how do you square that with posed as a "pimp."
Damn this guy wore a lot of hats, 22 year old banker, boyfriend, law student, politician, pimp.
COMMENT #127 [Permalink]
...
Patterico
said on 3/2/2010 @ 10:32 pm PT...
Care to apologize? Or are you going to give me a Hoyt; stating that since you said, "He represented himself as a banker and as her boyfriend," you did not mean at the same time.
I did mean both at the same time.
He said he was a banker.
He said he was her boyfriend.
At the same time.
Which does not mean he was HER banker, idiot. That's your idiot gloss, which you idiotically imported all on your own, in an idiotic attempt at a gotcha.
I lack words to express my contempt for you.
COMMENT #128 [Permalink]
...
Patterico
said on 3/2/2010 @ 10:34 pm PT...
And Patrick, if you concede that O'Keefe simply posed as her "boyfriend," how do you square that with posed as a "pimp."
Uh, pimps are also boyfriends of the prostitutes? Idiot? You never heard of that?
I wear a lot of hats. Father. Husband. D.A. Blogger. Music lover. Debunker of morons like you.
ALL AT THE SAME TIME!!! AMAZING!!!!
COMMENT #129 [Permalink]
...
Ernest A. Canning
said on 3/2/2010 @ 10:50 pm PT...
Okay, smart guy. I need a bit of help here. I went back over the entire Baltimore transcript--couldn't find a single instance in which O'Keefe said "banker" or "Wells Fargo."
But you know, I'm getting old. Possible I could have missed it. Smart guy like you would have th cite handy.
So perhaps you can give me the page and line where O'Keefe said he was a "banker" at "Wells Fargo."
No more wiggle room friend, your last post was "posed as a banker." Let's see the evidence.
COMMENT #130 [Permalink]
...
Ernest A. Canning
said on 3/2/2010 @ 11:02 pm PT...
Hmmmm. Still waiting, bright guy.
COMMENT #131 [Permalink]
...
Patterico
said on 3/2/2010 @ 11:10 pm PT...
Ernie,
Please start paying better attention. My patience is not unlimited.
Lora wanted to shift the discussion to Brooklyn, so I accommodated her.
Learn about the scandal first, and then comment, would be my advice to you. That would help you avoid beclowning yourself so badly.
COMMENT #132 [Permalink]
...
Patterico
said on 3/2/2010 @ 11:49 pm PT...
Let's just recap:
Ernie says:
Patterico, aka Mark Frey, wrote @30
He and Giles said they were setting up a house for Giles and underaged girls to turn tricks and give the money to O'Keefe for his Congressional campaign.
______________________
Facts:
O'Keefe, who went in dressed like a college student, said nothing of the sort.
Let's go to the transcript!
O’Keefe: We’re bringing these girls from overseas.
Hannah (Eden) Well, they’re here.
O’Keefe: But, we are gonna take a part of the profit and I intend to use the profit
Theresa (ACORN): Right.
O’Keefe: From the tricks the girls perform
Theresa (ACORN): Right.
O’Keefe: To fund my political campaign.
Theresa (ACORN): Right.
I mean, that's pretty rich. You gotta admit that, Ernie. You say he said "nothing of the sort" and I give you a portion of the transcript where he said exactly that.
I mean, you're not so dense that you don't appreciate that, right. How devastating that is?
Even though the devastation is to your credibility?
COMMENT #133 [Permalink]
...
Ernest A. Canning
said on 3/2/2010 @ 11:50 pm PT...
Wow! Your a sad little character you are, Pat. Still wondering how you ever passed the bar.
You and I have consistently debated the content of the Baltimore sting. Your post,#112 does not say that you are referring to the Brooklyn sting.
Here's what you actually said, first quoting Lora:
He represented himself as her boyfriend, as someone who was trying to help her get set up on her own, yes as someone who hoped to use some of the money she made which she said she wanted to use to help him, AND as someone who was trying to help her escape FROM a pimp. Sorry but your legal stuff just does not apply here. As Ernest said, the ACORN reps were not lawyers.
He represented himself as a banker and as her boyfriend, trying to help her escape an abusive pimp.
________________________
So like your claim that O'Keefe "posed as a pimp" in the Baltimore office when O'Keefe never said he was a "pimp" and implied otherwise, we now find you saying that O'Keefe "posed as a banker" without once mentioning that you meant he posed as a banker in Brooklyn.
But I was supposed to pierce your obtuse references and actually realize that you meant something you never said? And since I did not realize that which you never stated nor implied by your post, #112, that makes me either a "liar" or a "moron."
Sorry, Pat, but the law school I attended didn't include classes in mind reading, and you, sir, are a very, very, very strange fellow.
COMMENT #134 [Permalink]
...
Patterico
said on 3/3/2010 @ 12:29 am PT...
I am sorry you are too slow to follow the thread, Ernie. Perhaps if you review what Lora wrote you will see that she wanted to shift the discussion to New York.
Of course, if you knew the facts on the ground, you would not have been so confused. It's only because you haven't read the underlying transcripts that you are getting caught with your pants down.
Sorry, Pat, but the law school I attended didn't include classes in mind reading, and you, sir, are a very, very, very strange fellow.
Mine neither. Sorry yours did not emphasize the value of mastery of factual detail of subject matter that you claim to be involved in.
I understand that you're sort of getting left behind by all the emphasis on facts and transcripts and stuff you clearly have little patience for. That's fine. Nobody can be an expert on everything.
I just suggest that you leave this to those of us who have some idea what we're talking about.
As a betting man, I bet you won't accept my advice. And I am content to go on demonstrating your lack of grasp of the facts. I'm just feeling a little sorry for you, is all.
COMMENT #135 [Permalink]
...
Brad Friedman
said on 3/3/2010 @ 1:38 am PT...
Patterico -
I've been very patient and tolerant (and even welcoming) with you here, and have several times warned you about following our few rules for commenting here.
But it seems you just can't respect the rules of this site by playing nice by others and NOT issuing personal attacks as you had been warned.
These are just from two of your latest comments:
Uh, pimps are also boyfriends of the prostitutes? Idiot? You never heard of that?
I wear a lot of hats. Father. Husband. D.A. Blogger. Music lover. Debunker of morons like you.
...
Which does not mean he was HER banker, idiot. That's your idiot gloss, which you idiotically imported all on your own, in an idiotic attempt at a gotcha.
Smartly done. You're now on the moderation list, which means your posts will be posted here after I get time to review them.
I wish you had been able to behave like an adult, so you could have continued discussion without my having to babysit you, since I have much more important things to do. But thanks for forcing me to treat you like a kindergartner.
BTW, I see that two previous comments of yours made their way into moderation all by themselves, because we don't allow complete reposting of articles from elsewhere here. Quote and link if you like, but you may not copy and paste material wholesale.
I'm sorry you were unable to respect the rules. Behave for a bit please, so I can remove you from the penalty box, because, frankly, I have no time for that shit.
BTW, my wife owns a gas station and gives me the money earned from it to help pay off our mortgage. Clearly then, I'm an oil industry executive! Yeehaw! Yeesh...
COMMENT #136 [Permalink]
...
Patterico
said on 3/3/2010 @ 1:42 am PT...
Ernie is a guest blogger here, and a lying idiot like you. I thought the people allowed to post here could take the heat. Someone called me a sociopath and I don't remember seeing a warning for them.
This is your way of squelching uncomfortable facts. Because you're a liar.
You're getting well known for being a liar. I can make that case better from my blog than from your pissant little comments section anyway. Liar.
COMMENT #137 [Permalink]
...
Ernest A. Canning
said on 3/3/2010 @ 7:42 am PT...
You really are quite taken with yourself, aren't you Patrick.
With all due respect, my right-wing friend, I am not at all impressed with your lawyering skills. A good attorney always strives for precision in his or her writing.
One should not have to track through a thread to see what it is that an attorney means. If you had intended your post #121 to apply to the Brooklyn ACORN Housing sting, which, as you are fully aware is a separate entity, it was incumbent on you to say that this is where you came up with the "banker" representation.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you carelessly wrote comment #121 with Brooklyn in mind rather than ascribe to you the nefarious motive of being intentionally obtuse.
Now turning back to the Baltimore ACORN sting, which was the only video you posted at Ponterico's Pontifications when you offered to pay Mr. Buehlert $100 if he could prove that O'Keefe did not pose "as a pimp."
It was the source of our colloquy.
Before you barred my IP, I pointed out at your site that the transcript belied the assertion that O'Keefe "posed as a pimp" at the Baltimore ACORN. (Typical of right-wing bullies --- they'll come into a progressive site and scream their heads off, but if someone threatens to expose their charade to the unthinking wing-nuts who worship their every word, they shut them off).
The issue, Patrick, is whether O'Keefe "posed as a pimp," not whether you could parse a few words out of a 46 page transcript to make out a case that O'Keefe had subtly thrown in the elements for a violation of CA Penal Code 266h, which has no application in the state of Maryland.
Neither O'Keefe, Breitbart nor any of the other propagandists at the Fox "New" network represented that O'Keefe had uttered words that would be sufficient to make up the elements of a CA PC 266h violation. They represented that this "filmmaker" (now an accused federal felon) went in dressed as a pimp. They, and you, posted the Baltimore ACORN video with voice-overs which amounted to representations that O'Keefe had asked questions that made it clear that he was Giles' pimp.
Yet, when we review the actual transcript we learn that O'Keefe had totally distorted the ACORN employees' responses; that O'Keefe, who was dressed as a college student, repeatedly told the Baltimore ACORN employees that he was nothing more than Giles' friend. Indeed, from that same transcript we learn that, throughout much of their little charade, both O'Keefe & Giles went to great lengths to evade saying that Giles was a prostitute until after they had secured the sound-bites they were seeking for their dubbed-over video.
I would grant you that during the course of a 49 page transcript, O'Keefe uttered words which you or I, as lawyers, might argue should be considered sufficient to suggest a violation of CA PC 266h. But within the perspective of any lay individual who does not practice law, O'Keefe most definitely did not "pose as a pimp at the Baltimore ACORN" --- certainly not as that word, "pimp," is commonly understood by the general public and by the commercial media outlets that covered this story.
Now, Patrick, I note that while you concede that the allegations made by the former Blackwater insiders in their sworn affidavits, if true, would expose Blackwater management to the charge that they are "actual" pimps, not pimposters like O'Keefe, yet you chose not to answer my query as to whether you would support a Congressional cut-off of funds to Blackwater.
And I understand fully why you evaded that question --- because it unmasks the gaping hole in this entire ACORN sting.
Suppose you did your banking at Bank of America. When you went to make a deposit at your bank, you handed cash and a deposit slip to the teller, who pretended to make the deposit, but pocketed your money. If the bank, upon discovery of the embezzlement, fired the teller, turned the teller over to the authorities and restored your money, would the Bank of America be guilty of a crime?
Or consider the recent stories that have emerged in which female members of the U.S. armed forces have been raped by fellow soldiers. Are we to then assume that the U.S. military is a criminal band of rapists and cut-off all further funding to that "criminal organization?"
ACORN consists of some "400,000 member families organized into more than 1,200 neighborhood chapters in about 75 cities across the country." Harshbarger reports that O'Keefe and Giles conducted their subterfuge at only 3 ACORN offices; that there were "extenuating circumstances in two of them;" that the "ACORN employees captured on video were members or part-time staff. They were not organizers or supervisory level employees;" that ACORN promptly dismissed those part-time employees. How is that any different from the bank or US military scenarios--except that, unlike the soldier/rapists, ACORN's part-time employees did not violate any law?
The real thing that gets in your craw, Patrick, is that ACORN represents the working class and minorities, and it is quite obvious, that you care for neither.
COMMENT #138 [Permalink]
...
Bob Ross
said on 3/3/2010 @ 8:20 am PT...
Well said Ernest. I'm still curious why Patrick's office isn't launching an investigation of violation of California Penal Code 632
COMMENT #139 [Permalink]
...
David Lasagna
said on 3/3/2010 @ 9:34 am PT...
Brad and Ernie,(and really everyone) I have deep, deep feelings of respect, admiration, and love for you both, but with all due respect, I think the missed issue here on both sides is the inability to look at this, and I mean really looking at it, with something other than an ammunition gathering mission, from each other's point of view.
I've mentioned this book before and I'll mention it again.(Jeannie Dean, I've ordered a copy for you)--
Returning to the Teachings: Exploring Aboriginal Justice by Rupert Ross
Ross is a Canadian prosecutor. He looks at this new movement that's afoot of doing things the old way in regard to legal issues. Rather than punitive justice, restorative justice. Sounds like remarkable things are happening.
The native way is not so much about right and wrong, winning and losing, judgments of bad and good. This is not to say that the native communities are not strong about what is desirable and harmonious. They are all about that. They're just not interested in pursuing the punishment path, like we are.
For them it's all about relationships and connection. Much more involved, nuanced, and demanding than our way. Ours is the truly primitive(and ineffective)way.
I wish we all could apply these same principles a bit more here. Replace punitive dialogue with restorative dialogue. I have to believe it's possible.
COMMENT #140 [Permalink]
...
Adam Fulford
said on 3/3/2010 @ 9:54 am PT...
I think far-right extremists have long been abusing the liberal tendency to try to be inclusive and reasonable. Right now the mainstream media applies no standards of reason for their beloved like-minded right-wing thinkers, but demands a higher standard towards "liberals".
COMMENT #141 [Permalink]
...
BlueHawk
said on 3/3/2010 @ 10:32 am PT...
WOW!
This Patterico guy is a real fantasizer...a world class fantasizer.
I'm in awe...
Brad and Ernest- good job
David Lasagna- as I said before...yours is a noble effort but you're dealing with a loony, deaf-dumb, fully programmed wonderland resident in Mr. Patterico; making nice with him won't change a thing.
Methinks Patterico doesn't respect you David, he just sees you as an easy mark....you're willing to consider his lie. Mr. Lasagna known lies are not to be entertained...even in the spirit of Peace...because lies are never instruments of peace.
Adam Fulford and Bob Ross- damn good points.
COMMENT #142 [Permalink]
...
David Lasagna
said on 3/3/2010 @ 2:43 pm PT...
Okay, so far nobody's digging what I'm saying with the possible exception of everyone's current favorite public enemy #1, Mr. Patterico.
I'm a little chagrined that some of you think I'm a nice guy trying to be nice and am being easily fooled. I assure you I am every bit as much an asshole ready to make war as the next guy. But having tried that mode to much ill effect over the years I thought I'd go looking for another way. I just really think there is one.
Fortunately, I have already had several lifetimes worth of being completely unheard, unacknowledged from the people I've been closest to. So I've sorta been in training for just this kind of situation forever.
I'll keep standing on my footstool trying to get your attention.
COMMENT #143 [Permalink]
...
Lora
said on 3/3/2010 @ 5:51 pm PT...
Dear David Lasagna,
Relationship and connection are fine and well when both sides are making a good-faith effort. I confess I see no real evidence of good faith from Pat here. I believe Ernest's last, truly outstanding, post #137, WAS a good-faith effort at reasonable, factual, careful, thorough, and extremely civil communication --- as close as I've seen to "relationship and connection" with another commenter who has offered a quantity of insults to him.
Pat has cherrypicked his quotes to make his point. While perhaps none of us are entirely free from the cherrypicking disease, I think you'll agree that many of us have supplied far more context to make our points.
If you look at the Clark Hoyt thread at my comments #12 and #39 and Ernest's comment #31 you will see that we addressed some of what Pat here addressed on this thread, but with more lines from the transcript in order to provide the context that is lacking in Mr. Pat's comments here. (BTW, Rico, I was way ahead of you, not needing to keep up as you stated.)
To conclude, here is a "transcript" of what might have happened had O'Keefe ACTUALLY represented himself as a pimp trying to get ACORN's help to buy a house for the purpose of setting up a brothel for underage undocumented immigrant girls:
(Alert: made-up transcript!)
James: Hi, my girlfriend Athena here and I want some help to buy a house.
Acorn rep: Did you attend the class?
James: No, we need to talk to you first, because we are gonna use the house for prostitution purposes.
Acorn rep: Umm...what did you say?
James: I said "prostitution." You see Athena here she is a prostitute, you know what I mean, and I take care of her business. I handle her clients and she gives me the money.
Acorn rep: Um, Athena? Is this true?
Athena: Uh huh, but we want to change that because he is gonna run for Congress someday
James: And I don't want nobody to be able to trace that money or business back to me.
Acorn rep: O-kay...
James: Also, we will be having about a dozen girls from El Salvador working there too.
Athena: As prostitutes
James: They will be making me a lot of money so I can use it in my campaign.
Athena: Some of them are thirteen years old. They have no papers.
James: We've been discriminated against wherever we go. The banks have thrown us out. We've even had the police called on us.
Athena: Will you help us buy a house so we can carry on our business?
Acorn rep: ............
COMMENT #144 [Permalink]
...
Bob Ross
said on 3/3/2010 @ 6:23 pm PT...
Indeed Lora. What I find funny in all this is that Patrick takes Okeefe at his word. The transcripts don't match the video and when looking at the transcripts as a whole Okeefe beats around the bush for the most part. If Okeefe truly represented himself as a pimp like he originally claimed he would have been more overt. If he really thought Acorn were a bunch of corrupt dummies he would have straight said it instead of spending in the transcripts 40+ pages before breaching what his alleged involvement was.
Okeefe lied about dressing up as a pimp in the offices and in the videos tried to frame it as if he dressed like one. Now if he lied about that why is Patrick so willing to take his word there?
I had a debate with someone on this where they try to claim the method or procedure didn't matter. I wonder if they gave Dan Rather the same benefit. Even though the gist of his story was true and was confirmed by Killian's secretary and by members of the National Guard in Alabama who never saw Bush attend drills or don't even remember him.
Yet the procedure doesn't matter as long as the end result is what they want it? Okeefe won't release the unedited tapes much as Terri Schiavo's family wouldn't release the unedited tapes they took of her. The unedited video would probably be less dramatic.
COMMENT #145 [Permalink]
...
Patterico
said on 3/3/2010 @ 6:35 pm PT...
David:
Let's cut to the chase.
1) In your review of the transcripts, did you find O'Keefe saying he wanted to set up a house where Giles and underage prostitutes could turn tricks and give him the money for a Congressional campaign?
2) If so, does that mean he posed as a pimp (albeit "the good pimp" who was also Hannah's boyfriend and who was trying to rescue her from the "the bad pimp" and only wanted to pimp out 13 year-olds for good reasons) at ACORN?
COMMENT #146 [Permalink]
...
Jeannie Dean
said on 3/3/2010 @ 7:34 pm PT...
(#136)
That was me. I called you a sociopath.
I didn't mean it as an insult.
I meant that you need help.
Shocking that you missed my nuanced point.
COMMENT #147 [Permalink]
...
Jeannie Dean
said on 3/3/2010 @ 7:49 pm PT...
..the intended insult was the implication that you're a p**sy.
(Sorry. Sorry, Brad. I tried to show restraint. Clip me, spank me, banish me to moderation limbo if you must. Well worth it.)
COMMENT #148 [Permalink]
...
David Lasagna
said on 3/3/2010 @ 9:03 pm PT...
Dear Lora @ 143--
I agree completely, both sides have to make good-faith efforts.
In my limited dealings with Mr. Patterico I felt there was good faith. I had initially commented to him in complaint of his content and tone. He responded civily. He later acknowledged that he had misinterpreted something. To me these looked like signs of genuine interest in dialogue.
But we were on a little life raft with a leak trying to paddle to that island over there to maybe start a dialogue when the heavy artillery came in and I for one got swamped. Life raft shot to shit. Don't know what happened to Pat. Last I saw him he seemed pretty busy with the incoming, lost his shit again, and got put on probation.
I will say it again. Reading the Baltimore transcript from what I imagined might be Breitbart's or Patterico's point of view I thought I could see how they might come to their conclusions.
I repeat--their conclusions are not the ones I come to. I do not share what I was imagining might be the basis or theoretical constructs of their interpretations. I just was thinking maybe I could see how they were putting it together.
It's my view that in trying to deal with other humans, especially in this country at this time, it's helpful to factor in the likelihood that people are unhappy, afraid, and in pain. It seems to me this helps contribute to some pretty interesting thinking.
COMMENT #149 [Permalink]
...
David Lasagna
said on 3/3/2010 @ 9:27 pm PT...
Lora and Jeannie and everyone,
I am spending an inordinate amount of time trying to express something to you but man is it not coming out clearly, so fuck it for tonight.
love,
goodnight,
Dave
COMMENT #150 [Permalink]
...
Patterico
said on 3/3/2010 @ 10:31 pm PT...
David Lasagna,
You have spent two nights talking about how you can kinda sorta seeing what I am saying but of course you don't believe it. Now, Friedman has made the discussion difficult because he allows everyone to call me a liar, and his guest blogger can repeatedly suggest that I lack legal ethics and am engaged in a professional conflict of interest, but I can't call this same guest blogger an idiot without being put in moderation, which means it takes my comments hours or perhaps days to come up.
So I guess you aren't seeing it when I ask you this simple question, which I would like you answer when you finally do see it:
Do you think, reading the transcripts, that O'Keefe told ACORN workers that he wanted to set up a house where Giles and underage girls could turn tricks and turn over the proceeds to him, which he would use for his Congressional campaign?
Rather than spending an entire other evening tomorrow apologizing to your colleagues here for thinking my arguments aren't crazy when looked at from a certain point of view, could you answer that very straightforward question for me?
COMMENT #151 [Permalink]
...
Jeannie Dean
said on 3/4/2010 @ 2:01 am PT...
Did he say "turn" tricks, FolyFo? Cuz from all the 'alleged' audio transcripts I've had to endure reading here this week I only remember that O'Keefe said "do tricks" ? Maybe it was "perform tricks". Or "performing tricks for money." ?
Those phrases could mean anything, Froopy-doo. I "perform tricks for money" at children's parties when I do that thing with the magic egg and the birthing doll. I "perform tricks for money" when I get paid to write a good joke, just like you "do tricks for money" when you get paid by bad guys to help them disenfranchise poor people and swindle the public and the media and the congress into supporting it. That's a helluva trick.
BuuuuUUUuT...
Turning tricks" can only mean one thing. So if O'Keefe said "doing" or "performing" tricks and you're using "turning" here and now out of context to try and notch up your utterly absurd chest-thumping nonsense - then game over, whatever-your-name-isn't.
What did O'Keefe say: 'do', 'perform', or 'turn'?...Or was it 'do' in NY and "perform" in Baltimore? Maybe it was 'complete' tricks by the time he got to L.A.
.....
Not to worry. I'll wait days for your reply to that question as it awaits moderation from the staggering number of times you're going to call me an 'idiot liar sociopath', or some butchered form thereof in your response. (You could really use some creative writing courses. And brushing up on your reading /comprehension skills wouldn't hurt either. )
But I'm hoping you'll simply produce a quote that answers my question from the transcript that I'm being kind and good enough to take you at your (wwaaayyyy compromised) word wasn't completely made up out of whole cloth.
Thanks, Boiler Muffin!
COMMENT #152 [Permalink]
...
BlueHawk
said on 3/4/2010 @ 6:12 am PT...
David Lasagna and Patterico
First David's comment @148
My point to you is that you're trying to twist yourself into Patterico's, Breitbart and O'Keefe's mindset "to see their point of view".
Well Mr. Lasagna, sir that just doesn't make sense. They have a singular agenda that doesn't encompass truth as it's goal...they're simply destroyers seeking their own ends.
I've said many times there are many reasonable, rational right wingers who pursue truth. But the likes of Patterico, Breitbart, O'Keefe and the NYTimes editor don't care about the truth of any matter, they're bought and paid for right wing propagandists, period.
Mr. Lasagna, from my point of view you're lacking discernment, everyone is not a candidate for trying to find common ground with. In my humble opinion one seeks common ground and with another that is seeking the same...There is zero evidence that Patterico being here has any other motivation but to hammer one singular, dishonest viewpoint.
The only ground Patterico wants to occupy is right where he stands, He's not willing to budge for the truth or anything else. Patterico doesn't view you or anyone else here as worthy of his consideration...he ignores the truth that many here have offered and hammers his same old debunked non-sense ad-infinitum. That isn't someone seeking a clearer understanding or wishing to come to some kind of acquiescence about anything with you or anyone else at Bradblog...If he were seeking higher ground he would have conceded valid points and not resorted to childish epithets.
In short...Patterico is looking for mindless converts...not agreement.
Patterico @150
You play the victim well...I guess we'll just ignore the name-calling and smear campaign you waged here.
A simply google search for Patterico returns that it's your favorite tactic when faced with opposition; to call names and smear your opposition as liars and worse.
You don't defend your ideas well with reasoned arguments. You seem to come to conclusions without investigation of any kind...like you've been indoctrinated or something.
And you call yourself a lawyer ?
COMMENT #153 [Permalink]
...
Bob Ross
said on 3/4/2010 @ 7:00 am PT...
Patrick what I find funny is your dancing and weaving trying to say that Okeefe posed as a pimp based on the way Okeefe dance and weeved in the transcripts. Okeefe's point was to try to make Acorn look dumb and corrupt. Now if he was truly posing as a pimp as you claim he would have come out and said it and then tried to get the reaction. Instead of spending the equivelent of 40 pages pretending to be a student. Also do you know what the statute definition of pimping in Maryland is compared to California? Also being the Deputy DA you understand California penal code 632 that Okeefe violated and that you should be investigating.
COMMENT #154 [Permalink]
...
Ernest A. Canning
said on 3/4/2010 @ 7:01 am PT...
Patterico said @150
his guest blogger can repeatedly suggest that I lack legal ethics and am engaged in a professional conflict of interest...
________________
Please go back and actually read what I wrote, Patrick. I did not "suggest" anything. I asked you whether your public defense of two individuals whom your department should be investigating for PC 632 violations within your jurisdiction creates an ethical dilemma. If you believe it does not, you could have said so, explaining why it did not create an ethical dilemma for you.
With all due respect, Patrick, I believe that any fair-minded person who tracked back through the comments each of us has left on this threat will find my behavior a model of decorum. Your comments, by contrast, have all the earmarks of a petulant child.
And again you ignore the most direct question I asked. As a CA citizen, I would like to know why the District Attorney of the County of Los Angeles is not investigating a possible PC 632 violation that took place in Los Angeles.
COMMENT #155 [Permalink]
...
Ernest A. Canning
said on 3/4/2010 @ 7:06 am PT...
To my friend David Lasagna. I have been listening. I don't think that you, at this point, understand the totalitarian mindset that is behind the ACORN smears. I haven't as yet responded because that will be the topic of a post currently in the can.
COMMENT #156 [Permalink]
...
Patterico
said on 3/4/2010 @ 7:13 am PT...
Jeannie Dean sez:
Did he say "turn" tricks, FolyFo? Cuz from all the 'alleged' audio transcripts I've had to endure reading here this week I only remember that O'Keefe said "do tricks" ? Maybe it was "perform tricks". Or "performing tricks for money." ?
Those phrases could mean anything, Froopy-doo. I "perform tricks for money" at children's parties when I do that thing with the magic egg and the birthing doll. I "perform tricks for money" when I get paid to write a good joke, just like you "do tricks for money" when you get paid by bad guys to help them disenfranchise poor people and swindle the public and the media and the congress into supporting it. That's a helluva trick.
BuuuuUUUuT...
Turning tricks" can only mean one thing. So if O'Keefe said "doing" or "performing" tricks and you're using "turning" here and now out of context to try and notch up your utterly absurd chest-thumping nonsense - then game over, whatever-your-name-isn't.
You got me! He said performing:
O’Keefe: coming over from El Salvador. In addition to protecting them and getting their feet on the ground so that they can you know perform the tricks and you know learn the how LA prostitution scene is I was also wanting to um use some of the this is very lucrative and potentially we can use a lot of the money we’re getting from the underaged girls from El Salvador and use some of the money for campaign one day
Next lame defense?
COMMENT #157 [Permalink]
...
Bob Ross
said on 3/4/2010 @ 3:51 pm PT...
Why aren't you prosecuting a violation of the California penal code 632 in LA Patterico? Next lame defense? If he was posing as a pimp he would have come out and said it to get a better reaction instead of beating around the bush through most of the videos. It was a hack job.
COMMENT #158 [Permalink]
...
Ernest A. Canning
said on 3/4/2010 @ 7:56 pm PT...
Ah, there he goes again.
Patterico, aka LA County Deputy DA Patrick Frey, once again shifts to the San Bernardino ACORN sting, because he knows that the original site for his challenge to Eric Boehlert was Baltimore and that the Baltimore transcripts prove beyond a reasonable doubt that O'Keefe did not "pose as a pimp" at the Baltimore ACORN.
Mr. Frey refuses to admit the obvious. He has also refused to explain why his office has not initiated a criminal investigation of Giles and O'Keefe with respect to a likely violation of CA Penal Code 632 --- this despite the fact that, as a Deputy DA, Mr. Frey has a sworn duty to uphold the law irrespective of whether a crime is committed by a progressive or a right-wing scam artist.
Mr. Frey chose to ignore the point I made which blasts a gaping hole in this entire ACORN phony pimp charade:
Suppose you did your banking at Bank of America. When you went to make a deposit at your bank, you handed cash and a deposit slip to the teller, who pretended to make the deposit, but pocketed your money. If the bank, upon discovery of the embezzlement, fired the teller, turned the teller over to the authorities and restored your money, would the Bank of America be guilty of a crime?
Or consider the recent stories that have emerged in which female members of the U.S. armed forces have been raped by fellow soldiers. Are we to then assume that the U.S. military is a criminal band of rapists and cut-off all further funding to that "criminal organization?"
ACORN consists of some "400,000 member families organized into more than 1,200 neighborhood chapters in about 75 cities across the country." Harshbarger reports that O'Keefe and Giles conducted their subterfuge at only 3 ACORN offices; that there were "extenuating circumstances in two of them;" that the "ACORN employees captured on video were members or part-time staff. They were not organizers or supervisory level employees;" that ACORN promptly dismissed those part-time employees. How is that any different from the bank or US military scenarios--except that, unlike the soldier/rapists, ACORN's part-time employees did not violate any law?
Mr. Frey refuses to answer Brad Friedman's repeatedly asked question: What steps, Mr. Frey, did you take to verify that the audiotapes were unedited and complete?
Mr. Frey has consistently refused to answer my question: Whether his continued defense of O'Keefe, an accused federal felon, and Giles, creates for him an ethical dilemma since his office should be conducting a criminal investigation of the PC 632 violation.
Just as the Brooklyn prosecutors determined that O'Keefe and Giles edited the videos to fit their political agenda, it appears that our Patrick Frey has edited his responses to evade any question that does not fit his political agenda.
That said, I am truly pleased that Pat Frey continues to visit this marvelous site. Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic, but if Mr. Frey could tone down his anger and open his mind to take in the wealth of knowledge made available in more than 7700 Brad Blog articles, like David Brock, Patrick Frey too could experience an epiphany of sorts, and come to realize that he has been Blinded by the Right.
COMMENT #159 [Permalink]
...
David Lasagna
said on 3/5/2010 @ 10:43 am PT...
Dear Patterico and Bluehawk--
Sorry, just seeing your most recent remarks now. Been off this comment section for a few days. Thought maybe all the action had moved on. Still a novice at exactly how all this works in cyberland.
Patterico re: your questions at #145, #150
Yes, when I try to look at it from what I make up is your way of looking at it, I see where I think you are seeing that he is establishing his pimphood and the rest. I see it. I read it and I say, oh here's where that interpretation is coming from.
The reason that doesn't make me jump over to agree with your overall interpretation, however, is that I see a lot of other things in there as well.
Where you seem to see a complete damning of the Acorn worker, I see other possibilities of interpretation.
And in trying to be fair, like I'm trying to be with you, I have to take into account that I'm only reading a transcript. I was not in that room. If I could see/hear the unedited videos I would have more of an idea of the multiple clues often given in human interaction through tone, eyes, inflection, cadence, etc. There are a lot of heavy accusations being made back and forth all based on the interpretations of realities represented by these videos. I want to be very careful to not leap to unwarranted conclusions.
1. First of all I have to back the whole interpretation process up to a point I have not seen you acknowledge exists.
Acorn is an organization that as far as I know was just minding its own business. However, efficient or inefficient, one might think they are, they were just doing what they do, which is trying to help poor people.
There were no child prostitution rings with 13 year olds from El Salvador or Guatemala. There was no prostitution anything.
Giles and O'Keefe come in and start lying. A young, attractive couple comes into Acorn and starts lying their heads off. I was taught not to lie. So my first question for you is--are you in favor of wholesale lying to complete strangers who have done you no harm?
2. When I read the transcript, I tried to look at it not only from what I was imagining was your point of view, but what I imagined was the Acorn person's point of view. Is there any reason in the world your view is the only possible one here? I've seen you make no claims to being infallible so I'm hoping you'll agree there are other possibly viable viewpoints besides your own.
Reading it from what I imagine might be the Acorn person's point of view, it's not hard to see a person who is trying to do their job in a very weird circumstance. This is a strange tale, full of lies, she is being told. She's being told this sweet young girl is in trouble. That Hannah is in danger. The Acorn worker is trying, at least some of the time to get them to pay taxes. She's trying to get the fictitious children, arriving soon, into school. Is she doing that because she's an evil child prostitution advocate or is she doing her best, while being constantly lied to, to come up with whatever she can to maybe help the little girls and this young couple? I don't have an absolutely definitive answer to that. But I see nothing to swing me to your interpretation over a more generous one towards her.
This is long enough for now. But I have my second question for you.
re: San Diego--
Juan Carlos said yeah, yeah, yeah many times to Giles and O'Keefe. He said other things as well. But when they left, after having taking multiple pictures of Hannah and freaking O'Keefe out in the process, he called his cousin, a policeman, because(again being lied to)he thought there was human trafficking going on. What is Acorn supposed to be guilty of here?
COMMENT #160 [Permalink]
...
David Lasagna
said on 3/5/2010 @ 8:09 pm PT...
Dear Bluehawk @ 152
I must again disagree with you re: Mr. Patterico.
I see the kind of fun you, several other of my tribemates here, and Mr. Patterico are having. You all must be getting something out of it, cuz everyone keeps going at it.
I have a sister and brother-in-law who love Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. Please believe me when I tell you that I have been engaged in variations of the kind of dogfight I am witnessing in this comment section off and on for years. This time, in wanting to try something different, I tried making Mr. Patterico a good faith offer. So far with me he has been civil. And he acknowledged a mistake he made. That for me is enough reason to proceed. We'll see where it goes. Maybe it will blow up in the next second. But maybe it won't.
I do not believe I am twisting myself into anything. I went for a very nice walk just this afternoon. Moving parts seemed to be in working order. Nothing twisted out of shape.
I realize that you are not alone in thinking I am fooling myself here. Several of my fellow Bradblogdinians have expressed the belief/concern that I'm being either naive, conned, or misguided in one way or another. I hear everyone and I respectfully continue to disagree. And I suspect at least Rabbi Michael Lerner would be one who would support my efforts. He's always talking about the need to understand where the other side is coming from. And the need to stop demonizing each other. And the need to incorporate psychological and spiritual dimensions into our efforts.
(disclaimer--I have not studied the Bible. I'm not a big religious person. But there are certain religious teachings that you hear by virtue of living in this country that just sound like they have a lot of emotional/psychological/spiritual common sense to them.)
When Jesus said--Love thine enemy as thy self.--Do you think he was looking at the Apostles and saying that with a wink and a nod? If he meant what it sounds like he meant, how would you apply that to Mr. Patterico?
COMMENT #161 [Permalink]
...
BlueHawk
said on 3/5/2010 @ 9:55 pm PT...
David @160....
Fine...
But you're mistaking disagreement for lack of love...No one especially myself didn't express any lack of love for Patterico. I can love someone and still think they're full of shit...and Patterico is full of shit.
I chose not to play Patterico's game of twister...and frankly I'll be honest enough here with you to say that I'm highly disappointed that you lumped myself, Brad, Ernest, Lora and Bob all in the same blanket...
Only Patterico resorted to lies and namecalling. Yet you blanket everyone here into the same category (except yourself of course)...I find it revealing how you slyly put yourself "above it all". That's not a loving stance David...
You looking down from your angelic cloud telling others how to behave and all.
Humans disagree David and some humans are highly disagreeable beings. Nowhere have I heard that I must buckle to lies and acquiesce to twisted truth in order to get along in this world.
I know I can be salty at times...I give as good as I get.
Why is it that you choose to lecture Bradblogians on behavior...but you said nary a word when Patterico flat out slandered Brad and Ernest as liars, and called everyone here childish names ?
Or should Brad and Ernest have just given Patterico a cyber hug ?
Kowtowing to fools doesn't make the world a safer place David...standing for truth makes the world safer.
As I said to you earlier...Your discernment leaves a lot to be desired David.
COMMENT #162 [Permalink]
...
David Lasagna
said on 3/6/2010 @ 6:41 am PT...
Hi Bluehawk @ 161,
I'll try again, but I may have to bail after this. These things take so long to compose to try to get right. And I'm just not that good at typing and going back and forth to cut and paste from here and there to try and illustrate my points. And I feel like not only is no one getting what I'm talking about(while assuring me that they do)but they're getting increasingly annoyed with me in the process. And that we're not getting anyhwere and that this subject is just too involved to successfully do in this medium. But I'll give it another go.
1. You wrote--No one especially myself didn't express any lack of love for Patterico.--
No one didn't express any lack of love?
First of all I have to confess that I stopped reading all the back and forths after a while. My eyes, my body, my head, everything can't stay on the computer like I think maybe a lot of you can. It sounded like the arguments and tone were being repeated and I got overwhelmed by the sheer volume. So maybe there was some love I missed. But from what I saw...
1. I don't know what to tell you. I didn't think I was hearing a lot of love in the room.
2. I agree you can love someone and still think they're full of shit. I was getting the thinking Patterico is full of shit part, but missing the love you're suggesting may have been underneath or somewhere.
3. Who's Bob? I didn't mean to put Bob in a blanket. Do you mean Patterico?
4. Concerning your disappointment. Disappointment for me is a weird sort of here's-a-shit-sandwich-for-you kind of word so I got uncomfortable reading that. But to the substance of your concern--there are certainly stylistic differences to appreciate in the way everyone was making their arguments. But for me there also seemed to be these similarities I thought I was seeing across the board--
a. constantly putting the other person down(again, I'm not speaking of stylistic differences in the put downs which certainly exist) b. the need to "win" the argument c. the absence of effort to truly look for any merit at all in the other person's view. On those three points everyone to me looks pretty similar. I agree that our side basically has all the merit and there side just about none or even way into the minus column on merit but that's not what I'm talking about.
5. re: excepting myself from the critique--I don't think this is a fair criticism because in comment # 142 I clearly stated that I am an asshole. If that's not including myself in the criticism enough, I don't know what to tell you.
Also, in comment #116 I apologized for and tried to clarify an earlier comment that I thought may have sounded arrogant and presumptuous, like that I could teach anybody anything about all this conflict in the thread.
So again, calling myself an asshole who likes to make war does not seem compatible with your statement that I think I'm an angel on a cloud.
Having said all that, I know I can sound shitty in this way you're suggesting and although I'm not at all sure I'm doing it here, I know I have a problem with that, am always working on it, and will consider your words some more.
6. re: why I only criticized our side and not Pat--the first thing I said to Pat was--Do I come shit in your house? What's the purpose of coming in here and screaming insults?--
I then made a little suggestion/offer at trying some civil dialogue and Patterico took me up on it.
I was going to object to him about calling Brad a liar, but there followed such an avalanche of objection on him by others I thought I didn't need to. I thought my efforts might be better spent exploring the possibility of a less confrontational communication.
7. As far as kowtowing to fools--I repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly said words to the effect that I was not yielding ground on the pursuit of truth or anything that Brad has uncovered. I made a point of that again and again. I thought I was being a little misinterpreted from the start and I didn't want people to think I was buying into baloney and tried to assure you and others again and again.
That I seemed to have completely failed in those oft repeated assurance attempts and that you, and I think most everyone, keeps telling me that I'm being naive, misguided, conned, etc. and being unwittingly sucked over to the dark side continues to reinforce my feelings of being unheard.
So...I'm feeling a little lonely and misunderstood. Boo hoo. Boo hoo. But that's fine and I'm still a complete Bradophile, in love with Brad and generally just a Bradblog lovebug! But I'm also about ready to give up the ghost(whatever that means)on this one.
Hope that answers your complaints.
COMMENT #163 [Permalink]
...
BlueHawk
said on 3/6/2010 @ 8:58 am PT...
David Lasagna @162
I hope you read this...
I'll reply because I feel this is a conversation worth having. It gets to the root of what civil discourse is.
1st I ask you to read back and scan MY comments here. I did the same, and I see no ad hominem attacks or childish insults in my words on this thread...I fully admit that I can be a salty individual when the situation merits.
I would ask you to put yourself in Brad and Ernest's shoes. They have work here that has taken days and much mental energy to produce...I know the effort they put into making sure their work has integrity and can stand the test of accuracy.
For Patterico to come here and accuse them of being liars and sloppy writers is very personal with them. I fully understand and applaud Brad and Ernie's defense of their heartfelt work here at Bradblog.
Patterico's lying insults of their work is not to be taken lightly...
The O'Keefe-Breitbart topic is clearly; as fully documented by several media outlets, a case of a con job perpetrated by two individuals seeking to further a political agenda, not in the interest of truth seeking or journalistic integrity. I can cite many widely known facts that support my perception of my position.
Given that scenario David...I took issue with you "trying to see Patterico's point of view". In my opinion Patterico's point of view is simply anti-liberal; hence Patterico sees any issue dealing with liberals as already pre-determined...liberals are wrong and he is right. The facts or truth doesn't matter, and given facts or truth that don't match his pre-conceived biases, Patterico will skew and deflect them for his mental comfort. That's the contortion you were doing to yourself.
That is a highly dubious habit for an attorney as Patterico professes to be.
Again David...I don't know what your definition of "love" is. But from my experience, love isn't always civil...hell a lot of pure evil has been perpetrated in a very civil manner.
I am a believer in self-love, which I hope extends into a universal love; but self love doesn't include making nice with those that sorely abuse my being or the beings of those I consider friends, which includes all Bradbloggers. . No one here is perfect...hence my practice of love isn't perfect. My intention is to be genuine. Being fully genuine is a supreme act of love in my belief. Being truly, fully who one is...
So I'll conclude that I don't agree with your assessment of the exchange here, but that's human. We won't agree...what makes this world so awesome is that we need not agree on everything...we need however to make room for all TRUTHFUL points of view.
COMMENT #164 [Permalink]
...
David Lasagna
said on 3/6/2010 @ 1:35 pm PT...
re: my own comment # 162
Apologies to Bob Ross if you're wandering around here and you saw me write--Who's Bob?-- Of course Bluehawk was referring to you. For better or worse I had not included you in my criticisms so I initially didn't know who Bluehawk meant.
COMMENT #165 [Permalink]
...
David Lasagna
said on 3/6/2010 @ 1:58 pm PT...
Bluehawk @ # 163
As per your request I went to do a random check of your comments. Second one I came to was this--(admittedly not from this thread, but still on topic)
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
... BlueHawk said on 3/4/2010 @ 8:04 pm PT...
DAMN!
This Patterico feller is shameless...friggin' shameless.
I kinda feel for the guy....compulsively beating his head against the same brick wall. I think he's knocked a screw loose.
Let it go Patty...no one's buying your twisted crap; your credibility is shot to hell.
Geez!
This is the kind of thing I mean by dismissive and in the put down category that I was seeing on all sides.
That you're trying to guilt me or whatever it is you're doing when asking me to put myself in Brad and Ernie's shoes is for me far, far beyond the pale and getting a little too weird.
I think the world of Brad and Ernie. I see brilliance in them. I have to believe they know how I feel and in what high regard I hold them as I have told them so repeatedly. They have written of their doubts of my views regarding this Patterico stuff. I feel we're all fine with each other and if we're not I trust that they will let me know.
I am not taking the insults lightly. Apparently you don't believe me when I say that again and again or you're not seeing that I'm saying it again and again. This is making me not want to talk with you because I do not feel heard.
When you say--I took issue with you "trying to see Patterico's point of view".
For me that's the heart of it and what I am objecting to.
I am trying to get deeper into the difference. I am trying to find the point of departure with what looks like reality to me. I am trying to learn how to talk to and understand people I do not agree with.
My definition of love in this case is seeing the world through someone else's eyes. You object to that. I think it is a worthy pursuit.
COMMENT #166 [Permalink]
...
BlueHawk
said on 3/6/2010 @ 2:45 pm PT...
David @165
Firstly...I asked you to
1st I ask you to read back and scan MY comments here.
I asked you to review my comments on THIS THREAD because this thread was my first encounter with Patterico....You however had to go to a later thread which was well after myself and I presume everyone had grown tired of Patterico's slash and burn, repetitive act....and honestly I see no problem with the comment that you have issues with. To me it wasn't dismissive...it was descriptive.
You end with...
My definition of love in this case is seeing the world through someone else's eyes. You object to that. I think it is a worthy pursuit.
David, I don't try to see through the eyes of someone who is blind...Patterico is blindly adhering to a pre-conceived prejudice. As someone said earlier; Patterico isn't acting in good faith in this forum...he came to hammer a point, a point that has proven to be dishonest and fully manufactured by those with a political agenda. That political agenda consists of further disenfranchising those who are already disconnected from society.
That my friend is a shameless pastime ...What is the value of seeing through they eyes of a race baiting liar...when they have race baiting liar written on their forehead ?
David I was hoping for a more meaningful exchange with you about this matter, but frankly you're proving to be tone deaf. I'll accept that maybe I'm not expressing myself well. But you've ignored the more meaningful points that I made in 163...such as...
Brad and Ernest's honest hard work being smeared here as lying hypocrisy; because Patterico doesn't like what they report, or the fact that Patterico himself has been dishonest and juvenile here...
and you've replied to the more trivial and went to another thread to find a "dismissive" comment from me.
I don't know what you're expecting here David...but methinks it's unrealistic.
I'm done.
COMMENT #167 [Permalink]
...
Jeannie Dean
said on 3/6/2010 @ 2:57 pm PT...
Important Reminder:
This is not even a verified transcript Whats-His-Gut is coming in here and insulting us all for taking the time (in my case, being practically forced) to read. If I understand it correctly, this is the transcript O'Keefe and CO. have released.
WTF?!
DEDUCTIVE REASONING: I think all Bradbloggers can agree, from the copious, well sourced evidence presented here by Brad n' Ernest (and Mike!) and now the growing number of media outlets and superstars (New York Daily News and MY COLBERT!) piling on, that O'Keefe, Breitbart, (and this now ever-present clown) are full of shit.
Why we should be wasting so much precious time and energy dissembling and examining the lies of liars - doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I'm a video / audio gal. I'd much rather have this discussion AFTER the release of the raw footage so we can independently confirm the transcripts for ourselves.
That said, I'd just like to add as quickly as I can to a fascinating, disgusting, unruly but important Bradblog thread:
My Lovley Lasagna and Beautiful Bluehawk ~
I, too, feel that your conversation is VERY worth having and I'm grateful we can have it for the merciful momentary (?) lack of nasty interruption from the source of the contention causing it. What a world of difference can be forged in higher house dialogue when it is allowed to unfold unfettered; when we don't have to slow down constantly and stop to type-up so much Close Captioned for the Thinking Impaired.
And no, I do not "love" a creature for behaving this poorly - know why? Because bullies know better. They do. And they refuse change their behavior because it works for them. Oh, and 'cause bullies don't respond to love. As a bartender, I can tell you I've done the field research and they don't. They respond to baseball bats and beatings (allusion mostly metaphoric).
In fact, getting their asses handed to them is the only way they learn. If you wanna "twist" and "stretch" to see the decency in folks as perturbed as this fella, then why don't we agree to believe THAT IS WHY THEY'RE CONSTANTLY ASKING FOR AN ASSKICKING(***).
It's like their water.
They need it to grow.
When I put them down(allusion mostly metaphoric) - I'm doing the Lord's work.
Just like a Goldman CEO.
(FYI - I wrote my disertation on the natural habitats / behaviors of the North American Giant Asshole; willing to further cite my own findings upon request.)
And that is who we're talking about here, Dave - nasty, racist, propagandist bullies. And you are giving them such good graces that it reads really really super-duper...odd. It's like hearing someone say (and I loathe to bring up another tired WW2 analogy, but it is just so damn apt):
"..But the SS has a point of view that no one but me can 'let go reality' long enough to see! Why are you all being so Nasty to this Hitler Youth? Love him in good faith! He has potential to be decent because he admitted to me that he was wrong once when he "misunderstood" and thought that I was calling him "foolish" after HE continues to call everyone around me a sociopathic liar for citing facts and standing by them!!! And because he has conceded this small, microscopic amount of ground to me and only me on the charges he completely made up in the first place - well, he must be okay and you guys just aren't seeing it or I'm not communicating it well..."
COMMENT #168 [Permalink]
...
Jeannie Dean
said on 3/6/2010 @ 3:06 pm PT...
(cont'd.)
...I think one of the reasons you feel you are being misunderstood is because you are seeking (and finding) a false identity for propagandists (who I know - you don't acknowledge as such) but to us, they are KNOWN propagandists, and no matter how many disclaimers you tack on ("I'm not saying I believe it BUT"...) when you describe exploring their perspective as "seeing a larger truth", Woah.
That just can't be what you mean to say...
I'm very glad you brought up your sister and brother-in-law. Everyone here should know that you love your Glenn-Beck-loving sister so much, that you're "twisting" yourself up as you describe in this and other threads, in a good-faith effort to better understand her / bridge an otherwise difficult reality chasm between. It's a beautiful thing. And in that setting, your efforts may yield much one-on-one, loving fruit.
But this is not that.
She is not he.
A Noteworthy Aside: perhaps we need to deprogram the mob individually (as one Lasagna does to another) while we behead the media propaganda hydra beast (allusion mostly metaphoric) collectively - completely and without mercy (as is my preferred inclination from what my experience has taught.)
And Dave, I can't speak for Ernest, Lora, Brad, Bluehawk and the rest you cite, but no - I don't think this is 'fun' at all. Making the slow poke assholes keep up with the rest of us, and holding them accountable for trying to hold us back - ain't no picnic, Bub.
It has me feeling mostly defeated every day.
Which is why the kick-boxing classes...
..so I can (mostly metaphorically)hurt some
Great North Amercian Giant Turds, thus growing the consciousness of the species as God intended.
(***Hats off to Ernest / Lora et al. An info war asskicking (metaphoric) the likes of the which delivered to the nasty fella in this thread has never been more eloquent. No contest. Hands down neutralized.)
COMMENT #169 [Permalink]
...
Jeannie Dean
said on 3/6/2010 @ 3:17 pm PT...
(And BLUEHAWK! Hats off to Bluehawk. Deeply regret that omission above. Love your amber waves-of-going-against-the-grain.)
COMMENT #170 [Permalink]
...
Lora
said on 3/6/2010 @ 3:52 pm PT...
Jeannie,
Right on as usual.
Bluehawk,
Much admiration for dealing up front with our dear Lasagna.
Dear Lasagna,
I've been there, I think. I'm a tad more cynical now. I was part of a months-long (actually over a year) debate in the comments section of another blog in which I sadly learned the tactics that have been displayed here by our Patterico. I grew to realize that they were not genuine. They were used for one purpose only: to bring down the other side and to reign triumphant. I also sadly learned that other bloggers can support such reprehensible tactics when their side is supported. I'm eternally grateful to Brad that he is different.
I've believe I've been quite reasonable and civil however and I never shy away from a good online fight debate. It's true I enjoy debating. However that does not mean I enjoy the fact that real people have been affected and have suffered in the issue that is being debated.
I am a firm believer in facts and logic. I am a firm believer in giving the benefit of the doubt. So, David, I wish you luck in your endeavor of full and unbiased perception.
COMMENT #171 [Permalink]
...
Jeannie Dean
said on 3/6/2010 @ 4:24 pm PT...
(correction to my above post #169: I wrote "'twisting' yourself up as you describe" - just re-read the latter thread and Lasagna never described it that way. Oopsy. I conflated BlueHawk's ascription with his.)
COMMENT #172 [Permalink]
...
BlueHawk
said on 3/6/2010 @ 5:17 pm PT...
Jeannie and Lora....
Thanks for your comments on my and David's discussion...for me they were very welcome.
You both make outstanding points.
COMMENT #173 [Permalink]
...
Brad Friedman
said on 3/6/2010 @ 7:35 pm PT...
Since I happened to have looked back here momentarily (and, please forgive in that I haven't read ALL of the related comments as closely as I suspect each of you have), let me ring in for just one quick moment.
BlueHawk asked: "What is the value of seeing through they eyes of a race baiting liar...when they have race baiting liar written on their forehead ?"
While I can't overstate the amount of appreciation I have for your and Jeanie Dean's and Lora's and other's recognition, and defense of, the time and care that I (and Ernie others here) take before posting anything on these pages, the comment above --- and the rest of the discussion --- prompts me to note a point that may so far be overlooked in this discussion.
Countering the demonstrably dishonest partisan liars and hacks out there --- like Los Angeles County Deputy D.A. Patrick "Patterico" Frey --- is a sad, but important necessity. But it's not enough to simply label him as a demonstrable liar and disreputable partisan operative and move on. Yes, that's what he is, but that's what he (dishonestly) calls me, when he's not busy, deplorably, also attempting to paint me as a supporter of child prostitution (yes, believe it or not), or whatever other sadly desperate ad hominems he can muster in lieu of intellectually honest debate and discussion.
Dismissing someone such as Patty with an echo of his own tactics --- even where doing so in this case is legitimate, versus his shameful use of what his crew likes to describe as an "Alinsky Tactic" (whatever and whoever he is) of tarring your opponents with criticism they'd tar you with, in order to preempt such an attack --- has its limits of effectiveness. Ignoring is another tactic which has its limits of usefulness.
Where David appears to be attempting, however fruitless it may ultimately be, to try and "see things through the eyes" of someone he tends to oppose, there can be important discoveries revealed in the process. If nothing else, in both Patty's attempts to attack me (and Ernie) and our fact-based reality, as well as in his attempts to court/manipulate David, the shamelessly dishonest Deputy D.A. has offered damning admissions that undermine his own blind partisan rage and excuse-making for liars and apparent criminals.
In short: There are many ways to skin a cat. All such ways are welcome and needed (other than to the cat).
Most importantly, it would be a mistake to allow the cat to encourage the good guys to turn on each other in the bargain. I don't believe you all have, even as the frustration with each one's differing approaches has clearly led to some frustration from all parties.
I much appreciate you guys hashing this out here, while remaining within the boundaries of civility and intelligent discussion and/or disagreement. I'll hope you guys can see that while there may be disagreements on varying pathways, the same goal lies ahead for all --- namely the continuing goal of truth, justice, the American way, and the appropriate discrediting, undressing and calling on the carpet of those who would hope to undermine all of the above for cynical, selfish, dishonest, dishonorable, disreputable, nefarious and despicably partisan purposes.
Thank you for keeping up the good fight and for giving a damn. AND for having my back when MY time is usually better spent advancing the great cause, rather than retorting to disingenuous, anti-American ankle-biters like our friend Patty here in comments.
Peace.
COMMENT #174 [Permalink]
...
David Lasagna
said on 3/6/2010 @ 7:59 pm PT...
Bluehawk--
I feel you are impossible to please. I have tried my darndest to address everything you say.
I suspect I am one of the least computer savvy people here. It's a pain trying to move around sometimes, find things. The computer gets stuck. Doesn't want to cut and paste. Things evaporate.
You said check my comments. Then because I found one not from THIS thread somehow I'm not acting in good faith. My point was that there has been tons of put downs. You said he had a screw loose and that he was friggin' shameless. I realize everyone thinks Patterico absolutely deserves all that he gets and more, but that was not my point. I was talking about put down type language. Where I come from friggin' shameless screw loose is in the dismissive family.
I want to scream when you claim I'm not taking on your more serious points like--
Brad and Ernest's honest hard work being smeared here as lying hypocrisy; because Patterico doesn't like what they report, or the fact that Patterico himself has been dishonest and juvenile here...
Am I not being supportive of Brad? Do you think Brad thinks I'm not being supportive of Brad? I know that I love Brad. I know that I love Ernest. I think the world of them. I hate computers but I love coming here and engaging and fighting the good fight with people who basically share my worldview. And in this most recent case, I went through two of those fucking transcripts. I had great stuff to dialogue with Patterico about. The San Diego case is particularly full of shit. That was enough work. But then I feel like I get to do double duty with the added work of having to fight off everybody in my tribe who thinks I'm missing the boat and aiding and abetting complete assholes.
Maybe each and every thing, each and every complaint, each and every one of you has about Pat is right on. Maybe he is doing each and every thing with exactly the motivation you ascribe to him. But I myself for just a moment was beginning to have a different interaction. How do any of you know where that might have gone? I know, cuz you already know. The Bradblog Seers.
Jeannie Dean the SS equivalency is too strong. And the whole point of what I was trying to do is to try and learn something to help us not go in that direction.
Who was I hurting? Why couldn't anyone even bother to ask me more about what I might be seeing and how I might be seeing it? The default position was I didn't know what I was doing. Credit given for being a nice guy, but an impossibly naive, misguided nice guy.
Each and every person who weighed in presumed to know more about the reality of my perceptions than I do.
From my point of view each and every person who weighed in ascribed either perception, motivation, or judgment to me that is very different from what I repeatedly stated was my perception, motivation, and judgment. Very little interest in the differences there. Very little inquiry into what I might be trying for. Felt almost universally adversarial.
Now maybe all of you who know me only for a little while and only through cyberspace know me better than I know myself. But is it possible that you don't? If that's a possibility in anybody's thinking, it was not evident to me.
I thought everyone had some merit to their complaints and reasonable concerns. I tried to address the complaints and acknowledge concerns as best I could while simultaneously standing up for my different vision.
Maybe Patterico is a lost soul. I do not know. You all sure have written him off. I had little illusion that I was going to pull off any kind of miracle of change with him. But I sure was interested in exploring the territory more. I sure was interested in trying to gently see how far it might go. I sure thought I might be able to learn something about the insanity all around us that makes so many people think so many crazy things and engage in so much hateful behavior.
And who's to say for certain that some seed might not have been planted?
Haven't to fight off my friends while I'm trying to pursue those sorts of things reminds me of why until now I have avoided group politics.
A few years ago I went with my Mom to see the Dalai Lama. He really seemed like a different kind of human. It was the first time I thought I understood what a holy person looked, felt, and sounded like.
When he was asked about the Chinese killing his people in Tibet he said that when people behave like that, when people engage in that kind of terrible behavior, it is almost always because of fear.
I see fear all around. I know I have lots in me.
If fear is helping drive Patterico's engine I do not believe trying to beat him into submission is going to do much to relieve him of his fear.
Again, I doubt I would have been able to effect any change but who the hell was I hurting by giving it a shot?
If you were lost, would you want everyone to be writing you off?
And again, when Jesus said love thine enemy as thy self, I don't think he added, except for the hopeless mean lying fuckers that you really can't stand.
I thought it was the hard ones that make you do the work. The work to change yourself.
Eqbal Ahmad's first point about what makes a terrorist tick is--the need to be heard.
I believe this goes for many, many of us. And just because the message is all garbled, confused, fucked up, unconsciously driven, and being acted out in most unpleasant ways I'm not sure that relieves of us trying to get to it.
Put up the boundaries as necessary, absolutely. Defend yourself. Don't put up with weirdness and shit and injustice and hypocrisy, for sure.
But for me the challenge remains to do all of that while striving to make peace and build bridges.
And if not bridges, perhaps birdcages. Mostly all the same letters.
Lora--thank you kindly for your kind words and well wishes.
COMMENT #175 [Permalink]
...
BlueHawk
said on 3/6/2010 @ 9:33 pm PT...
Brad and David...
Brad @173...well said...and thank you for fixing my comment @166.
David @174...Seems we've come full circle. I direct you back to my comment @106. That is the crux of the matter.
In my opinion two people with divergent points of view can't come to terms unless BOTH are sincere in the effort and honest in intention...David; Patterico wasn't sincere or honest here at all. He had a corrupt agenda from the start. That's why I see it as fallacy to attempt to "see things through his eyes".
We can go round and round David...but comment 106 says it all for me. Take it at face value...
COMMENT #176 [Permalink]
...
David Lasagna
said on 3/8/2010 @ 1:03 pm PT...
Bluehawk--
You ain't getting where I'm coming from.