|
SternSkipper -> RE: The state of politics today: "If Weiner comes after me, I'll release naked photos" (6/8/2011 10:29:50 AM)
|
quote:
Yup...I knew it, the "59" in your nick refers to the number of brain cells you have working. You have been dealing with me on the issue of why it was right for ACORN to be defunded. You have been dealing with Willbe and MasterSlave on what O'Keefe did or didn't do. Try to keep the fucking players straight, will ya?
Is this even a portion of the debate you're supposedly engaging in? looks strictly like an insult parade.
I just wanted to say that I finally gave that video you're peddling as 'real' but I gotta tell ya. I've looked at that thing many times and my first impression of the whole thing is that it's staged top to bottom. I mean they are alleging that they're interviewing street savvy people who've gotten jobs in some public service agency and THEY ARE BUYING THE WHORE AND PIMP STORY and dropping all pretenses and letting them have the full "here's how you do it" rap. These people ARE in NEW YORK FUCKING CITY DUDE... as WillB likes to say, it doesn't pass the smell test. But from a technical standpoint (and i have 30 years of technical experience with covert recording of audio/visual media and there are several people here that can confirm this.I have some SERIOUS issues with the media presented. Everything is so badly edited, I have no idea if they were in acorn's real offices or if the individuals identified as employees are in fact that. I mean you walk into an office designed for assisting people with entitlements and almost everywhere you look there are commercially printed card stock posters coaching applicants on their rights, how to fill out forms, etc. This stuff is provided .F.O.C. by federal and state governments. And certain ones are REQUIRED. I just don't see them. All I see is one 8 1/2 x 11 zerox sheet that says 'something' (you seriously can't tell from their conveniently poor quality video (video that I would add would STRAIN admissibility in a court preceding,it's just so lo-res.. Is breibart a cheapskate on top of everything else? I mean this wasn't the first video, you would think that since his pockets are being lined. Were I in the position he's in, upon reviewing the video I would open my wallet and say "here's $300 bucks go to radio shack and buy their best stealth camera" <well actually, it'd be more like "here's $2k go see Greg at Posthorn and tell him I sent you", if it was me instead of a dipshit like Breibart>).
But back to the video... There are places where the producer and the various viewers allege a question is asked about hiding money from a prostitution operation yet with the cuts, the actual question is edited out. So we're just to believe without any technical explanation of WTF happened to the question that it's somehow unworthy of being kept in the edit. Nope, not a word. ANY TIME this happens in investigative journalism, a rich and plausible explanation is given for it's absence. Nothing here... and then later, we have all kinds of weirdly framed answers sometimes with a faintly uttered question, and more often, NOT.
If I were sitting in a courtroom, or any public forum for that matter and I was asked "can you attest to the veracity of this video?". My answer would be "Not on your life".
If this stuff is real... Breibart had better get himself a better videographer and someone who knows how to stage proper investigative reporting.
|
|
|
|
