Republicans Pretend to be Democratic Election Judges

[JerryL]

A small snippet taken from one of the videos, and more could be found if one bothers to look. No illegal action took place because no transition took place, but it is clear (and part of the reason why ACORN is now bankrupted) ACORN got caught on camera for being in support of sex-trafficking underage girls.

The videos were determined to have been heavily doctored and misleading by every state AG involved, the GAO, and the independent investigator.

Not a single agency involved found legal or fiscal wrong-doing.

 

[Mindmaster]

I am just suggesting extreme caution when taking news from an outed fraud. But then again, ****ing Peter Popoff still manages to have a career, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

Most of the sites that call him a fraud are Soros funded, but I find his presentation style questionable enough. Anytime someone uses that soundbyte style of presenting footage a million things are called into question -- context is everything. I'd say regardless of what he did before, his footage and uncovering of the DNC tactics was real -- real enough to get several key campaign personnel fired. That basically is enough to make me think he was presenting facts there, but he does have a history of "going too far" and entrapping people; it's hard to say whether they would go to the depths they did without his incitement. Soundbytes/heavy editing can be used to make people say things they aren't saying, so I tend to reject that information without some sort of supporting facts.

 

[buddhist]

Oh so you're a Republican making fun of democrat idiocy?

Nope.

I'm a libertarian making fun of both Republican and Democrat idiocy.

 

[JerryL]

Most of the sites that call him a fraud are Soros funded"

Well. Those sites and three Attorneys General and the GAO (looking at just the ACORN findings).

 

[tytlyf]

Why would you get your information from James O'Keefe? He's a propagandist and criminal. Dangerous media.

 

[tytlyf]

Most of the sites that call him a fraud are Soros funded, but I find his presentation style questionable enough.

Got an example? Everyone knows project veritas is a bunch of nonsense, heavily edited manipulation.

 

[Mindmaster]

Well. Those sites and three Attorneys General and the GAO (looking at just the ACORN findings).

Regardless of that fact, because he printed/made an untrue video in the past doesn't mean that what he is presently doing is the same. People tend to lean toward absolutes, but truth is a sliding scale where various media outlets produce varying degrees of misinformation.

Certain things are not valid arguments:

1) Fallacy fallacy - Presuming because something was poorly argued (or presented) and therefore is wrong.

2) Genetic fallacy - Presuming someone's argument is invalid based on who it is from.

3) Tu quoque - Turning criticisms back on the person raising them, evading their points.

These are the type of arguments I see liberal-minded folks use all of the time on others, and everyone single one of them is a complete logical fallacy. Points are distinct and unique, and someone being wrong about one thing doesn't indicate whether they are currently wrong. They could have made mistakes, or found more information "this time", etc. Anyway, I think anyone could see my point from here - each assertion needs to be compared individually and analyzed or you are bound to get into trouble.

 

[Mindmaster]

Got an example? Everyone knows project veritas is a bunch of nonsense, heavily edited manipulation.

See my previous post, but the answer to your question is:

You should take information from everyone and make up your own mind, based on the facts you have available. Even a liar is telling the truth sometimes, lol.

 

[JerryL]

Regardless of that fact, because he printed/made an untrue video in the past doesn't mean that what he is presently doing is the same. People tend to lean toward absolutes, but truth is a sliding scale where various media outlets produce varying degrees of misinformation.

True. Mr.Ponzi's new scheme could be legit; but it would be a terrible assumption to work from.

He's had three major issues. He's been deliberately fraudulent every time. Here's a new issue from him. Wonder if he's suddenly completely different.

 

[columbus]

hese are the type of arguments I see liberal-minded folks use all of the time on others, and everyone single one of them is a complete logical fallacy.

Was combining all three of those fallacies into one sentence sardonically intentional?
Tom

 

[Mindmaster]

True. Mr.Ponzi's new scheme could be legit; but it would be a terrible assumption to work from.

He's had three major issues. He's been deliberately fraudulent every time. Here's a new issue from him. Wonder if he's suddenly completely different.

No assumption is valid, lol. Not even to assume he is putting a bad video next because his other ones were. I judge the validity of his DNC videos based on the actions the DNC themselves took after the release. If they were all fraudulent then it would be easier to stick to your guns rather than fire off tons of key campaign personnel, for example. We don't need think too deeply about why this was done.

Was combining all three of those fallacies into one sentence sardonically intentional?
Tom

Not really, it was more reminding people of the rules of the game. You can't make logic by being illogical. In your case, you are committing another one:

4) Texas Sharp Shooter - Cherry picking data clusters to suit your argument, or finding a pattern to fit a presumption.



I can do this all day...

 

[columbus]

Not really, it was more reminding people of the rules of the game. You can't make logic by being illogical. In your case, you are committing another one:

4) Texas Sharp Shooter - Cherry picking data clusters to suit your argument, or finding a pattern to fit a presumption.

That doesn't change the fact that I could substitute "conservative" for "liberal" in your sentence and it would be just as true.
Tom

 

[Mindmaster]

That doesn't change the fact that I could substitute "conservative" for "liberal" in your sentence and it would be just as true.
Tom

To some degree, but I think liberals favor certain types of fallacies... Conservatives tend to favor: Bandwagons (usually, because they are team oriented people), no true scotsman, false cause (spiritcooking), and appeal to authority(Rush Limbaugh said this so it is more important, or Alex Jones on Satanic Druids... lol.)

 

[JerryL]

If they were all fraudulent then it would be easier to stick to your guns rather than fire off tons of key campaign personnel, for example. We don't need think too deeply about why this was done.

That's just speculation... and it's speculation in direct opposition to official findings of every AG that investigated, the GAO, and the hired 3rd party.

 

[tytlyf]

See my previous post, but the answer to your question is:

You should take information from everyone and make up your own mind, based on the facts you have available. Even a liar is telling the truth sometimes, lol.

I do take information from all sources. Which is why I know exactly what conservative media does.. Remember, conservative media is relatively new. I find that it's typically conservatives that never change the channel or watch anything besides RW media. Mostly because RW media tells them to not trust anyone else. Slick techniques.