colbert destroys hannity and other rightwinger losers on acorn videos

[JiggsCasey]

Liability is one of the great jokes here, Jiggs, along with cmike and some others to the far, far loony reactionary right. The attack personally because they cannot refute objectively. You will get to simply smile then ignore them as many do here.

JokeStarkey (a/k/a "Jokey") is the actual joke here. he is much like you. A liar and a fraud. For example, he has zero credibility and yet still professes (though of course not one thinking person buys his schtick) that he is a "Republican." He's not, of course. Just one of his more transparent deliberate lies.

As to his complete lack of objectivity, he just posted his petty-ass attack piece without ever noticing that JizzCasey is engaged in the personal attack shit just as much as I have been in this little chat, yet fuckedup hypocritical gasbags like Jokey can only "see" it when the side they dislike is doing it. This is another reason he will always be a Joke.

It is best to ignore worthless hypocritical dishonest trolls like Jokey, JizzCasey, but since you two are like each other's masturbatory sock-puppets, I doubt you will, Jizz.

challenge No. 4, ignored... well, ok.

what is it about the issue that you just can't address, infantile one? what have i lied about? surely if i'm a liar, you have specific examples.

 

[DiveCon]

Liability is one of the great jokes here, Jiggs, along with cmike and some others to the far, far loony reactionary right. The attack personally because they cannot refute objectively. You will get to simply smile then ignore them as many do here.

you are confused again, it is YOU that is the joke here

 

[DiveCon]

Liability is one of the great jokes here, Jiggs, along with cmike and some others to the far, far loony reactionary right. The attack personally because they cannot refute objectively. You will get to simply smile then ignore them as many do here.

what a dipshit

 

[DiveCon]

Hardly.

The Republican politicians are puppets for the banks and healthcare companies that are destroying America.

As Adlai Stevenson said, "When the Republicans stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans."

Yeah, Adlai Stevenson said that, but we all know how honest and "inteligent" that man was.

Indeed he was.

And nothing has changed since then.

Republicans call the Omnibus Spying bill "The Patriot Act."

And they call end of life counselling "Death Panels."

And they call taking care of sick people "Socialism."

And they call reconciliation "The Nuclear Option."

And they call bigotry against gays "Pro Family."

Lying is what they do best.

What they do worst is governing.

gawd damn, you just keep on with the bullshit
stop taking recreational drugs and grow a brain

 

[DiveCon]

Liability is one of the great jokes here, Jiggs, along with cmike and some others to the far, far loony reactionary right. The attack personally because they cannot refute objectively. You will get to simply smile then ignore them as many do here.

JokeStarkey (a/k/a "Jokey") is the actual joke here. he is much like you. A liar and a fraud. For example, he has zero credibility and yet still professes (though of course not one thinking person buys his schtick) that he is a "Republican." He's not, of course. Just one of his more transparent deliberate lies.

As to his complete lack of objectivity, he just posted his petty-ass attack piece without ever noticing that JizzCasey is engaged in the personal attack shit just as much as I have been in this little chat, yet fuckedup hypocritical gasbags like Jokey can only "see" it when the side they dislike is doing it. This is another reason he will always be a Joke.

It is best to ignore worthless hypocritical dishonest trolls like Jokey, JizzCasey, but since you two are like each other's masturbatory sock-puppets, I doubt you will, Jizz.

challenge No. 4, ignored... well, ok.

what is it about the issue that you just can't address, infantile one? what have i lied about? surely if i'm a liar, you have specific examples.

wow, he wasnt even responding to your moronic post, that was joke starkey's moronic post

 

[JiggsCasey]

wow, he wasnt even responding to your moronic post, that was joke starkey's moronic post

i believe he referred to me in the very first line. ... read slower next time.... thanks!

 

[DiveCon]

wow, he wasnt even responding to your moronic post, that was joke starkey's moronic post

i believe he referred to me in the very first line. ... read slower next time.... thanks!

maybe you should read slower
it was in the LAST line


what a dipshit

 

[Liability]

Liability is one of the great jokes here, Jiggs, along with cmike and some others to the far, far loony reactionary right. The attack personally because they cannot refute objectively. You will get to simply smile then ignore them as many do here.

JokeStarkey (a/k/a "Jokey") is the actual joke here. he is much like you. A liar and a fraud. For example, he has zero credibility and yet still professes (though of course not one thinking person buys his schtick) that he is a "Republican." He's not, of course. Just one of his more transparent deliberate lies.

As to his complete lack of objectivity, he just posted his petty-ass attack piece without ever noticing that JizzCasey is engaged in the personal attack shit just as much as I have been in this little chat, yet fuckedup hypocritical gasbags like Jokey can only "see" it when the side they dislike is doing it. This is another reason he will always be a Joke.

It is best to ignore worthless hypocritical dishonest trolls like Jokey, JizzCasey, but since you two are like each other's masturbatory sock-puppets, I doubt you will, Jizz.

challenge No. 4, ignored... well, ok.

what is it about the issue that you just can't address, infantile one? what have i lied about? surely if i'm a liar, you have specific examples.

Hey Jizz, not that anything you say matters, since you are obviously a mental case, but for grins and chuckles:

Since I already answered the only coherent question you had (I couldn't give a shit if you care for the answer or not), the remainder of your posts making some unclear reference to ignored challenges makes zero sense.

That's your ballpark, naturally: Zero Sense.

 

[Vanquish]

I guess some of you get off on the personal back and forths on this forum. It's pretty sad that you can't stick to the topic at hand.

I just watched the Colbert video and think it's amusing and a bit insightful. Liability, wasn't it you who said you hadn't seen any proof that parts of the tape were misrepresented?

Colbert clearly shows the difference between the pimp costume and the button-down...which to me...is a great start to miscrediting the entire thing. If you're going to lie about what you wore, what else are you going to lie about?

There's no evidence that the original, un-doctored tapes have been destroyed. There's no evidence that they haven't either. No reputable news source has made any headway either way.

ACORN should sue Fox News for this libelous commentary. They should have known that this was false if they'd done what it took to really research the story.

 

[Liability]

I guess some of you get off on the personal back and forths on this forum. It's pretty sad that you can't stick to the topic at hand.

I just watched the Colbert video and think it's amusing and a bit insightful. Liability, wasn't it you who said you hadn't seen any proof that parts of the tape were misrepresented?

I once had a teacher suggest to a class that "if you're going to misquote me, at least misquote me accurately."



I believe (without going back to re-read all of this stuff) that what I had suggested or said was that (referring to the Brooklyn tapes which I had been discussing), I had seen no evidence that the tapes had misrepresented what the ACORN workers had said. In other words, I still have seen zero evidence that the tapes misrepresented the thrust of what ACORN was suggesting the pimp and ho do to get the mortgage application filed.

If the original, unedited and full tape (or disc) is not available, then I have to admit (again) that it would be darn difficult (if not impossible) to use the tapes (at least alone) to begin any kind of prosecution of the Brooklyn Office ACORN workers. At a minimum, a complete investigation would be warranted. In the end, I might end up agreeing with Brooklyn DA Hynes that there is no valid basis to prosecute the ACORN workers. I think it was Article who made that point to me. I agreed then and I still do. Fair is fair.

 

[Vanquish]

Yeah, I didn't take the time to go back and get your real quote..just my recollection I'm sure that's probably what you said and it's good enough for me. As you remind me, your point was about what ACORN had said, not about what the KIDS (sorry, can't call them journalists) actually wore.

But I still say that if they're going to lie about what they wore to trump up their case, it makes me wonder what else they lied about/misrepresented.

If the Brooklyn DA (I hope we could agree they're not a liberal group at all) decided not to pursue...I'm betting there's not much to pursue. That's not scientific...and trust me...I do police brutality cases...the police mess up all the time...but again..it's enough for me to have an opinion on an internet forum board about.

I really try and look at each news item starting from +0 to the left and +0 to the right. The fact that there's even a thread like this (since the starting point was the crap journalism by Fox) just proves the age of unbiased journalism is over.

 

[Liability]

Yeah, I didn't take the time to go back and get your real quote..just my recollection I'm sure that's probably what you said and it's good enough for me. As you remind me, your point was about what ACORN had said, not about what the KIDS (sorry, can't call them journalists) actually wore.

But I still say that if they're going to lie about what they wore to trump up their case, it makes me wonder what else they lied about/misrepresented.

If the Brooklyn DA (I hope we could agree they're not a liberal group at all) decided not to pursue...I'm betting there's not much to pursue. That's not scientific...and trust me...I do police brutality cases...the police mess up all the time...but again..it's enough for me to have an opinion on an internet forum board about.

I really try and look at each news item starting from +0 to the left and +0 to the right. The fact that there's even a thread like this (since the starting point was the crap journalism by Fox) just proves the age of unbiased journalism is over.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2070400-post6.html

The prosecutor in Brooklyn is a Democrat, so I see no reason to assume he's "conservative" except, maybe, to the limited extent of a willingness to prosecute alleged criminals.

But, even some liberals are willing to go that far.

 

[jillian]

As a GENERAL RULE, the obvious answer is "no." Your point is a fair one.

As a 'general rule'? My understanding of the rules of evidence is that once the video is deemed unreliable, it isn't admissible. We're not talking about editing for length (although if anything exculpatory is edited out, that would make it inadmissible, too, i believe).

But the question is whether there was any actual editing of the crucial parts. I saw no evidence of that.

You don't think the fact that he wasn't wearing what he was portrayed in the video as having worn isn't 'crucial'? I saw no evidence that the video was reliable in any way, shape or form.

Now, I deal primariliy with civil issues, but I'm thinking if someone tried to use that type of video against a client of yours, you'd have a motion to suppress in front of a judge so fast that his/her head would spin.

If I could use a fair portion of a video to establish that the suspect HAD actually conspired to offer advice to someone in the commission of mortgage fraud etc., I might explore the balance to see if there was any other interpretation before I decided to shit-can a case.

What fair portion? Once it's shown to be a doctored video, there isn't anything reliable about it. IT was spliced to pieces. That was the whole point of Colbert's exercise. Do you think that video was admissible to show that Hannity wanted to work as a prostitute?

yes, it is certainly possible that after a fair investigation I might have to come to the same conclusion as the Brooklyn DA's Office came to, all the same.

There ya go. I'm thinking Charlie Hynes wouldn't have let the case go if there were anything to it.

 

[Liability]

As a GENERAL RULE, the obvious answer is "no." Your point is a fair one.

As a 'general rule'? My understanding of the rules of evidence is that once the video is deemed unreliable, it isn't admissible. We're not talking about editing for length (although if anything exculpatory is edited out, that would make it inadmissible, too, i believe).

Your understanding is incomplete or your imagination is too limited, then.

But the question is whether there was any actual editing of the crucial parts. I saw no evidence of that.

You don't think the fact that he wasn't wearing what he was portrayed in the video as having worn isn't 'crucial'? I saw no evidence that the video was reliable in any way, shape or form.

Well, that's a reflection of your preconceived notions and bias. What was "portrayed" in the BROOKLYN video included an intro section that had him wearing the pimp costume he had worn in a different part of the country. What he wore in a title sequence or intro portion has no bearing on the question of whether (or not) the excerpts used in the Brooklyn video were deceptively edited. As I noted several times, already, it is not disputed that if the original unedited and unaltered and complete video (or disc) is not available, it would be a problem to lay a proper foundation for that tape as evidence.

Now, I deal primariliy with civil issues, but I'm thinking if someone tried to use that type of video against a client of yours, you'd have a motion to suppress in front of a judge so fast that his/her head would spin.

As I have repeatedly conceded, without he original and unedited video, it would indeed be difficult to lay a proper foundation for the introduction into evidence of that tape. But after a while you have probably discovered that the law is riddled with exceptions. And not all things that are difficult are necessarily impossible. To more specifically answer your point, though: IF those Brooklyn ACORN workers were to be charged and the DA tried to foist off JUST that (edited) tape as "evidence," you bet your life I'd oppose it if one of the ACORN workers were to be my client. And I expect I'd prevail on that point: it would probably NOT get admitted as evidence. But that still doesn't make it a legal impossibility.

If I could use a fair portion of a video to establish that the suspect HAD actually conspired to offer advice to someone in the commission of mortgage fraud etc., I might explore the balance to see if there was any other interpretation before I decided to shit-can a case.

What fair portion? Once it's shown to be a doctored video, there isn't anything reliable about it. IT was spliced to pieces. That was the whole point of Colbert's exercise. Do you think that video was admissible to show that Hannity wanted to work as a prostitute?

Well, the "fair portion" might include the entire interview (without the title or intro sequence taken at some other time and place. Or, SOME of the tape might include prejudicial material that a fair prosecutor would AGREE to delete from the copy offered into evidence. Again, what I was saying was premised on the proposition that either the entire tape was still available for comparison purposes, unedited or that OTHER evidence could satisfy the foundation requirement.

The Colbert tweak of Hannity was entirely an edit job. It was a work of CREATED fiction, like Avatar. So, obviously, there could never be a proper foundation laid for its admission. You are comparing, however, apples and oranges.

yes, it is certainly possible that after a fair investigation I might have to come to the same conclusion as the Brooklyn DA's Office came to, all the same.

There ya go. I'm thinking Charlie Hynes wouldn't have let the case go if there were anything to it.

Maybe yes. Maybe no. I see little reason to believe that any Democrat politician is all that eager to vindicate the quasi-journalistic efforts of a right winger -- especially at the expense of the politically connected ACORN group. But even if he was willing to do JUST his job and let the chips fall where they may, it is still entirely possible that Hynes would not be able to use that tape. { I still don't know if the entire unedited original tape (disc) even still exists. }

 

[Vanquish]

Dems can't prove it was edited unless they have the "real" tape.
Republicans can't trust the video as it's been called into question via the clothing parts.

Even if the Brooklyn DA is a democrat, he still has to prosecute the law. Yeah, there's a lot of discretion, but isn't there a summary of their investigation? Don't you think that if it was leaky some conservative group/outlet would have slammed it already?

So let's agree that Fox shouldn't have given these kids any credit AND that ACORN might have done what the kids said. We honestly can't go any further than that without actually having the tape.

 

[Liability]

Dems can't prove it was edited unless they have the "real" tape.
Republicans can't trust the video as it's been called into question via the clothing parts.

Even if the Brooklyn DA is a democrat, he still has to prosecute the law. Yeah, there's a lot of discretion, but isn't there a summary of their investigation? Don't you think that if it was leaky some conservative group/outlet would have slammed it already?

So let's agree that Fox shouldn't have given these kids any credit AND that ACORN might have done what the kids said. We honestly can't go any further than that without actually having the tape.

I have not seen the unedited version of the original disc or video. So, I cannot tell you whether the decision by the Brooklyn D.A. is a valid one or not. I wouldn't rely on the D.A.'s "summary" in any event if I can't see the unedited original.

I don't know what FoxNews saw or didn't see. IF they based their story -- crediting the work of the two conservative journalist/investigators -- on JUST the edited copy we have all seen played, then yes: FoxNews may have been jumping the gun a bit. Maybe. But what if FoxNews did have access to the unedited original copy?

 

[JiggsCasey]

maybe you should read slower
it was in the LAST line

what a dipshit

actually, cracker... he was addressing me .... if you read the post in question and had any semblance of reading comprehension, you would notice that it starts like this:

JokeStarkey (a/k/a "Jokey") is the actual joke here. he is much like you.​

Go play with your light brite now. Adults are talking.

 

[DiveCon]

maybe you should read slower
it was in the LAST line

what a dipshit

actually, cracker... he was addressing me .... if you read the post in question and had any semblance of reading comprehension, you would notice that it starts like this:

JokeStarkey (a/k/a "Jokey") is the actual joke here. he is much like you.​

Go play with your light brite now. Adults are talking.

he quoted joke, not you jizz
you continue to prove you are a fucking IDIOT

 

[JiggsCasey]

Hey Jizz, not that anything you say matters, since you are obviously a mental case, but for grins and chuckles:

Since I already answered the only coherent question you had (I couldn't give a shit if you care for the answer or not), the remainder of your posts making some unclear reference to ignored challenges makes zero sense.

That's your ballpark, naturally: Zero Sense.

Hi Lie... good to have you back, I've missed your drunken posts.

Actually, I lofted several challenges at you in my post, before you turned it into romper room. Let's review all that you ignored due to the fact that you have no argument of any depth or understanding, and the world is entirely black or white (and nothing ever in between) for people like you:

I asked you who these "uber-libs" are... You answered with one name: Soros. You alluded to Obama, Pelosi and Reid with colorful epithets, but said only that they "fronted" Soros. ... Zzzz.

I asked you what this unknown entity has allegedly done in comparison to the Bush League era of deregulation. You commented on the deficit, which the previous administration started, and this one continues ... So fair enough.

I then challenged you to consider that Obama is trying to re-ignite a dead fiat currency ruined by 28 years of ever-increasing deregulation and bank fraud, all enabled by the free market practices you worship. You ignored it.

I then, after you denied it existed, put the Enron era into proper perspective as it relates to a decade of undeniable corporate fraud. You ignored it.

I alluded to decades of outsourcing. You ignored it. ... I even anticipated your potential, and usually obligatory, excuse for outsourcing of U.S. jobs (taxes). ... You ignored it.

I challenged you on your profound hypocrisy regarding partisan pissiness, which you display in spades... You ignored it.

I hammered this undeniable point home:

This country was doomed long before Obama entered this burning building. ... Your hero entered with a surplus, and created a disaster, and I'm quite sure you know it.
​

you ignored it.

It was at that point that you punted from the exchange and turned it into sophomoric, turrets-laiden barbs and successfully managed to escape the merits of the debate entirely. Which is always the case when EVER you nail down an unbridled con man on the real issues, and the root causes of this unprecedented period in time.

Obama may be misguided in his strategy to borrow against the future in an attempt to jump start a flat-lining economy, ... but the fact of the matter is, he entered a burning building fully engulfed in flames while YOUR HEROES snuck out the back door with all the loot. The world is running out of cheap energy, and Dick Cheney knew this as far back as 1999. ... So they set about securing what's left by force, and pumping the value of their cronies' own stock in the process.

Grow up, and learn to think beyond your Fox News talking points. Dems, Pubs? ... They are two factions of the same corporate entity.

 

[Liability]

* * * *

Another one. When the effort is undertaken to snip out of the quote of any JizzCrazy's posts all the inane and insane blathering blithering bullshit, as I did in the above "quote," nothing else is left!

(I added the asterisks, of course. Gratis.)