New Speaker McCarthy to remove Jew Hating Ilhan Omar from committee assignment

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

2000 Mules was ignored by the left. Unwelcome news.

Because it's pure donkey shit. You'd have to be as dumb as a dog's dick to take it seriously.   

[Nationalist]

7 hours ago, dialamah said:

Debunked, not ignored.  The left can't help it if so many on the right are gullible.

I've seen 2000 mules and I've read the supposed "debunking", which is thin and desperate. 

[reason10]

12 hours ago, Rebound said:

You saw a video of a guy claiming to be her cousin. 
Even if he is her cousin, and he probably isn’t, that isn’t HER. 

He was probably both her cousin and her husband. She married her brother just to get into this country.

[reason10]

17 hours ago, Contrarian said:

I mean, please, I consider you one of the reasonable posters on the right wing populist spectrum.

No such thing. Omar had the backing of the Jewish community where she was elected, and is the same block that will penalize her by voting.

They sure don't need Reasonx10 or Ivan from the FSB to act as saviours.

It didn't take you long to go from the subject of the thread to personal insults, (of posters who are smarter than you.)

And you wonder why everybody says liberals are so stupid.

[Hodad]

7 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

Or so the Prog-Comm spin machine like Wikpedia would have you believe. Anybody can smear and slur though and you're doing more of it than O'Keefe ever did.

Love the way you posture and puff to bluster us into believing you've proven some sort of point though. Message from Prog, "You've learned well, little Padawan."

 Or did you learn that from Wikipedia? Would you like some quotes on what some folks think about Wikipedia?

Anyone can smear and slur and pull selected spun facts out their butts. Too bad they don't tell you that on Wikipedia. Some us understand why they don't. Farts in a crowded elevator syndrome.

If you think something is wrong on Wikipedia, document it and submit a correction. That's the magic and virtue of a shared repository of information that is open and transparent.  

That, and the fact that I don't have to gather dozens of links to primary stories - they are already linked there. 

I've watched O'Keefe's empire of lies grow since the the ACORN videos over a decade ago. He is total scum, taking hidden camera videos of people, creating outrageous conversations and then cutting and remixing the footage to create a false narrative. It's like if I took your posts and edited and rearranged the sentences to make you "say" something you never said. Oh, and then I sent it to the press and you got fired because of it. And then sometimes later the unedited forum would exonerate you--too late, too late.

[Nationalist]

7 minutes ago, Hodad said:

If you think something is wrong on Wikipedia, document it and submit a correction. That's the magic and virtue of a shared repository of information that is open and transparent.  

That, and the fact that I don't have to gather dozens of links to primary stories - they are already linked there. 

I've watched O'Keefe's empire of lies grow since the the ACORN videos over a decade ago. He is total scum, taking hidden camera videos of people, creating outrageous conversations and then cutting and remixing the footage to create a false narrative. It's like if I took your posts and edited and rearranged the sentences to make you "say" something you never said. Oh, and then I sent it to the press and you got fired because of it. And then sometimes later the unedited forum would exonerate you--too late, too late.

Many fine people on both sides.

Sound familiar?

You Libbies have no business discussing "context".

[Infidel Dog]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

If you think something is wrong on Wikipedia, document it and submit a correction. That's the magic and virtue of a shared repository of information that is open and transparent.  

See, that's the problem with only considering one politically charged, almost religiously dogmatized accepted narrative.

You don't actually know what the critique of Wikipedia is and your indoctrination will not allow you to open up to finding out. 

I'm going to help you anyway.

The problem with Wikipedia is editors who how know how to manipulate a system and have the time and will to do it can monopolize that system to the point any information that casts any kind of shade on the accepted narrative is kept out. These editors are pretty much all hard left Progs. This information is all over the internet if you were allowed to notice by your lords and masters. It's not a secret.

Edited November 21, 2022 by Infidel Dog

[Infidel Dog]

As to O'Keefe I've heard all the smears and slurs of him embedded into the accepted Prog narrative. They can almost always be answered. For example whole unedited videos from Project Veritas is usually available at his site. Or at least it was the last time I checked. He may have stopped bothering but editing content is something every mainstream clip you've ever seen does. They never offer the full unedited version though.

There's one critique of O'Keefe you guys never want to mention but it's the only one that really matters. He catches your lords and masters at their dirty deeds. All the time.

Edited November 21, 2022 by Infidel Dog

[Rebound]

5 hours ago, reason10 said:

He was probably both her cousin and her husband. She married her brother just to get into this country.

So… you’re just going to be full of sh!t and make up crazy things.  “Reason” my butt.  

[Hodad]

29 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

See, that's the problem with only considering one politically charged, almost religiously dogmatized accepted narrative.

You don't actually know what the critique of Wikipedia is and your indoctrination will not allow you to open up to finding out. 

I'm going to help you anyway.

The problem with Wikipedia is editors who how know how to manipulate a system and have the time and will to do it can monopolize that system to the point any information that casts any kind of shade on the accepted narrative is kept out. These editors are pretty much all hard left Progs. This information is all over the internet if you were allowed to notice by your lords and masters. It's not a secret.

Yes, a group on uncoordinated, unemployed young people who can work a computer are rewriting history as it unfolds--in their spare time. Or perhaps you're deeply paranoid and have swallowed WAY too much of the conservative victimhood narrative. 

If you're worried about it, pick a topic, cite some legitimate sources and add your perspective. 

[Rebound]

24 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

As to O'Keefe I've heard all the smears and slurs of him embedded into the accepted Prog narrative. They can almost always be answered. For example whole unedited videos from Project Veritas is usually available at his site. Or at least it was the last time I checked. He may have stopped bothering but editing content is something every mainstream clip you've ever seen does. They never offer the full unedited version though.

There's one critique of O'Keefe you guys never want to mention but it's the only one that really matters. He catches your lords and masters at their dirty deeds. All the time.

Journalism is REPORTING the news. 
“This happened”

”That happened”

A journalist does not create news.  O’Keefe clearly is not a journalist by any means. He lies and breaks laws to create the story he wants. 

[robosmith]

13 hours ago, dialamah said:

Shrugs.  Those who want to see election fraud, will see that.

And that's the whole problem, isn't it?  No way of knowing who's telling the truth, and who's lying.  So one picks a team, decides they always tell the truth and the other side always lies.

It's sad.

 

Except 2000 Mules is based on a fallacy that being in THE VICINITY of a drop box (because cell tower pings ARE NOT ACCURATE for location) several times a day is evidence of ballot stuffing. 

That is science. No way to fake that being valid to anyone who's knowledgeable about the tech.

[Infidel Dog]

1 minute ago, Rebound said:

Journalism is REPORTING the news. 
“This happened”

”That happened”

A journalist does not create news.  O’Keefe clearly is not a journalist by any means. He lies and breaks laws to create the story he wants. 

Unfounded claims just make you sound like one of those nuts who rely on them.

They also allow you to divert from the actual claim.

There was a video and on that video a guy was claiming how he bought or bullyragged ballots from the weaker elements of his immigrant community. 

Show me why we can't believe that without relying only on general smear and slur of the guys offering the evidence. Can't do it, can you? 

So really all you've got is some bad mouthing of an organization your progressive propagandizers don't like. I'll bet you think you've impressed someone. You haven't.

[dialamah]

2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Except 2000 Mules is based on a fallacy that being in THE VICINITY of a drop box (because cell tower pings ARE NOT ACCURATE for location) several times a day is evidence of ballot stuffing. 

That is science. No way to fake that being valid to anyone who's knowledgeable about the tech.

I agree with you.  But those who want to believe their side lost are going to cling to any evidence to support that view, regardless of how wesk that evidence is.

And the truth is also that we've been lied to so much by those in power that it is hard sometimes to know what's true.  Clinging to a side makes that uncertainty more bearable.  IMO and all that.

[Hodad]

26 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

As to O'Keefe I've heard all the smears and slurs of him embedded into the accepted Prog narrative. They can almost always be answered. For example whole unedited videos from Project Veritas is usually available at his site. Or at least it was the last time I checked. He may have stopped bothering but editing content is something every mainstream clip you've ever seen does. They never offer the full unedited version though.

There's one critique of O'Keefe you guys never want to mention but it's the only one that really matters. He catches your lords and masters at their dirty deeds. All the time.

Editing can be done ethically. It's possible for a shorter, cut down version of a conversation to truthfully represent a conversation or event.

O'Keefe, however, does not practice this type of editing. He is thoroughly dishonest, and if you swallow it, shame on you.

[Infidel Dog]

2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Except 2000 Mules is based on a fallacy that being in THE VICINITY of a drop box (because cell tower pings ARE NOT ACCURATE for location) several times a day is evidence of ballot stuffing. 

That is science. No way to fake that being valid to anyone who's knowledgeable about the tech.

"

In a 2018 opinion in the Supreme Court case Carpenter v. United States, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that when the government "tracks the location of a cell phone," it "achieves near perfect surveillance as if it had attached an ankle monitor to the phone’s user."

And Engelbrecht points out in the movie that the data in Georgia was used by law enforcement as a test case to help law enforcement solve a cold murder case of a young girl."

https://dailyangle.com/articles/2000-mules-true-the-vote-respond-to-ap-fact-check

The technology was also used to identify many of defendants charged January 6. So are you saying you want to let all those go free now because the technology can't be trusted? Bet you're not.

 

[dialamah]

3 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

"

In a 2018 opinion in the Supreme Court case Carpenter v. United States, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that when the government "tracks the location of a cell phone," it "achieves near perfect surveillance as if it had attached an ankle monitor to the phone’s user."

And Engelbrecht points out in the movie that the data in Georgia was used by law enforcement as a test case to help law enforcement solve a cold murder case of a young girl."

https://dailyangle.com/articles/2000-mules-true-the-vote-respond-to-ap-fact-check

The technology was also used to identify many of defendants charged January 6. So are you saying you want to let all those go free now because the technology can't be trusted? Bet you're not.

 

A cell phone passing by or stopping by a particular landmark doesn't automatically mean interacting with that landmark.  

Not to mention that following a suspect via cell phone only tells investigators where a suspect was, not what they were doing there.  Investigators have to follow and look around till they can find something - like a dead body.

[Infidel Dog]

13 minutes ago, Hodad said:

O'Keefe, however, does not practice this type of editing. He is thoroughly dishonest, and if you swallow it, shame on you.

Really? Because you say so, I guess or because somebody told you so? 

Hey, it would be real easy for you to go from being just another irresponsible slur merchant to an evidence based critic worthy of respect.

Address the actual claim that was made in the video originally mentioned.

Give us some evidence showing us why we can't believe the guy on that video is claiming to be Ilhan Omar's cousin and he acquires ballots through seedy even illegal methods.

Or is the sum total of your evidence the fact you think James O'Keefe is a big fat poopy head?

Is that what you seem to be suggesting makes you an expert on why we can't believe our lying eyes?

[Hodad]

6 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Unfounded claims just make you sound like one of those nuts who rely on them.

They also allow you to divert from the actual claim.

There was a video and on that video a guy was claiming how he bought or bullyragged ballots from the weaker elements of his immigrant community. 

Show me why we can't believe that without relying only on general smear and slur of the guys offering the evidence. Can't do it, can you? 

So really all you've got is some bad mouthing of an organization your progressive propagandizers don't like. I'll bet you think you've impressed someone. You haven't.

Okay, so about unfounded claims. Did O'Keefe produce ANY substantiation of who that guy is? What he is doing? Is ANYTHING in the video substantiated? No. It's not. Because it's a work of fiction. And you are unironically complaining about "progressive propagandizers" which the rest of the world call actual journalists. And it shouldn't be up to decent people to "disprove" a pack of lies. The people telling the story should be substantiating it. Shame on you.

From the FOX affiliate

In a second report from Project Veritas, surreptitiously recorded video shows a man receiving $200 in “pocket money” in exchange for his agreement to vote for Ilhan Omar.   

James O’Keefe, the founder of Project Veritas, calls it “an explosive piece of tape.” 

But two sources tell the FOX 9 Investigators the man is a relative of Omar Jamal, and that during the encounter outside Cedar Riverside Apartments, it is Jamal who is handing the man $200 which was intended for the family of a sick relative in Somalia.   

The Project Veritas reports also contend, without evidence, that the cash for ballots scheme is being bank rolled by Lake Street businessman Basim Sabri.   

In the second video, an anonymous woman said, “He’s Palestinian. He’s funding the whole thing.” 

“It’s so un-American, it’s so illegal,” said Sabri, reached at his home in Miami.   

Sabri provided the FOX 9 Investigators with a letter from his attorney threatening to sue Project Veritas for defamation if they do not remove the video.   

Sabri acknowledged that he is a long-time supporter of Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, and said he has also complained to the DFL about prior voting fraud in Ward 6. “I would never do that. Ever. Never. Because I would be a hypocrite,” said Sabri. 

For his part, Omar Jamal has used his appearance in the Project Veritas reports to raise nearly $30,000. In an interview with Somali American TV, he reportedly backtracked on claims he witnessed cash being exchanged for ballots.  

Omar Jamal declined an interview request, referring questions instead to Project Veritas.  

 

 

[Hodad]

9 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Really? Because you say so, I guess or because somebody told you so? 

Hey, it would be real easy for you to go from being just another irresponsible slur merchant to an evidence based critic worthy of respect.

Address the actual claim that was made in the video originally mentioned.

Give us some evidence showing us why we can't believe the guy on that video is claiming to be Ilhan Omar's cousin and he acquires ballots through seedy even illegal methods.

Or is the sum total of your evidence the fact you think James O'Keefe is a big fat poopy head?

Is that what you seem to be suggesting makes you an expert on why we can't believe our lying eyes?

Already done. O'Keefe is definitely a big fat poopy head. A huge piece of shi*t, actually. Believing your eyes is fine if you've got a brain behind them to do some critical thinking. To swallow down his lies without question is pretty sad though. He makes his money making suckers out of folks like you. But it confirms your biases, so it's no bother, yeah?

If O'Keefe were a legitimate journalist of any kind his stories would come with dates, documentation, confirmation of identity etc. But they don't. Do you know why? Three reasons. 1. Because frankly it doesn't matter, his target audience will buy any convenient story without substantiation. 2. Because he doesn't have any. 3. Because if he put claims and facts in writing, he'd get get sued even more often than he does now. Creating misleading and misinforming edits is more legally defensible than the documented lie.

 

Edited November 21, 2022 by Hodad

[Infidel Dog]

19 minutes ago, dialamah said:

A cell phone passing by or stopping by a particular landmark doesn't automatically mean interacting with that landmark.  

Not to mention that following a suspect via cell phone only tells investigators where a suspect was, not what they were doing there.  Investigators have to follow and look around till they can find something - like a dead body.

You'd save me some time if you read the links you were given.

To much to hope for, I guess. Here ya go then...from the previous cite:

"

Engelbrecht noted that the criteria they used to identify a person as a ballot trafficker was intended to rule out individuals who might merely have been passing by. The person not only had to have made multiple trips to multiple drop boxes, he or she also had to have made at least five visits to one or more of the non-profit, left-wing organizations that turned out to be a nexus of ballot traffic.

In Atlanta, the researchers identified 242 people who went to an average of 24 drop boxes and eight organizations during a two-week period.

"We want to absolutely ensure that we don't have false positives, meaning including people that should not have been included," said Phillips. "We're not in any way saying that this is all there is."

[Infidel Dog]

28 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Okay, so about unfounded claims. Did O'Keefe produce ANY substantiation of who that guy is? What he is doing? Is ANYTHING in the video substantiated? No. It's not. Because it's a work of fiction. And you are unironically complaining about "progressive propagandizers" which the rest of the world call actual journalists. And it shouldn't be up to decent people to "disprove" a pack of lies. The people telling the story should be substantiating it. Shame on you.

From the FOX affiliate

In a second report from Project Veritas, surreptitiously recorded video shows a man receiving $200 in “pocket money” in exchange for his agreement to vote for Ilhan Omar.   

James O’Keefe, the founder of Project Veritas, calls it “an explosive piece of tape.” 

But two sources tell the FOX 9 Investigators the man is a relative of Omar Jamal, and that during the encounter outside Cedar Riverside Apartments, it is Jamal who is handing the man $200 which was intended for the family of a sick relative in Somalia.   

The Project Veritas reports also contend, without evidence, that the cash for ballots scheme is being bank rolled by Lake Street businessman Basim Sabri.   

In the second video, an anonymous woman said, “He’s Palestinian. He’s funding the whole thing.” 

“It’s so un-American, it’s so illegal,” said Sabri, reached at his home in Miami.   

Sabri provided the FOX 9 Investigators with a letter from his attorney threatening to sue Project Veritas for defamation if they do not remove the video.   

Sabri acknowledged that he is a long-time supporter of Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, and said he has also complained to the DFL about prior voting fraud in Ward 6. “I would never do that. Ever. Never. Because I would be a hypocrite,” said Sabri. 

For his part, Omar Jamal has used his appearance in the Project Veritas reports to raise nearly $30,000. In an interview with Somali American TV, he reportedly backtracked on claims he witnessed cash being exchanged for ballots.  

Omar Jamal declined an interview request, referring questions instead to Project Veritas.  

 

 

First the obvious...

Your big smear is O'Keefe uses selected editing. Check out your video again. Tell me they're not doing that.

Next one is, nice suit, Liban. You've cleaned yourself up since your last appearance on video.

So you were ready for this appearance then.

And now we hear that what we saw on video we didn't actually see. This for instance:

Apparently that was just Liban making general comments about politics. 

Also that report on Fox 9 lies. It says Minnesota allowed collecting multiple ballots for a brief period. That's a lie. Other "news" sources you would rely on have been forced to retract that lie.

https://www.projectveritas.com/video/retraction-323-newsweeks-darragh-roche-corrects-fact-that-ballot-harvesting/

Quote

Minnesota law prohibits individuals from having more than three ballots. A district judge suspended enforcement of the three-ballot limit pending a court-challenge to the law, which meant that the ballot harvesters, such as Liban, exceeded the three-ballot limit at their own risk.

When the state’s high court affirmed the law in a Sept. 4 ruling, it meant that everyone who exceeded the three-ballot limit was in legal jeopardy.

https://www.projectveritas.com/news/james-okeefe-demands-new-york-times-retract-hit-piece-on-veritas-minnesota/

So a provable lawbreaker tells us he didn't break the law. And this is your superior evidence is it?

[Infidel Dog]

I bet Liban Mohammed doesn't collect illegal ballots anymore though.

So Project Veritas at least accomplished that. Doesn't mean his cousins and uncles haven't picked up the slack though.

[Hodad]

42 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

You'd save me some time if you read the links you were given.

To much to hope for, I guess. Here ya go then...from the previous cite:

"

Engelbrecht noted that the criteria they used to identify a person as a ballot trafficker was intended to rule out individuals who might merely have been passing by. The person not only had to have made multiple trips to multiple drop boxes, he or she also had to have made at least five visits to one or more of the non-profit, left-wing organizations that turned out to be a nexus of ballot traffic.

In Atlanta, the researchers identified 242 people who went to an average of 24 drop boxes and eight organizations during a two-week period.

"We want to absolutely ensure that we don't have false positives, meaning including people that should not have been included," said Phillips. "We're not in any way saying that this is all there is."

This is crap. Big question for you: If they have these people coming to the ballot boxes over and over again, where is the video of these people coming to the ballot boxes over and over again? They claim to have 4 million minutes of video footage, but can't actually string together clips of the same "mules" re-visiting ballot boxes? GTFO. Boy, wouldn't that be interesting, if not damning. The editors must have just thought it wasn't interesting. 

This is a very dumb conspiracy theory. The technology doesn't support the claims they want to make from it. They data doesn't show activity or intent, it simply tracks vicinity. And it didn't identify mules, it identified patterns from an enormous dataset, and then claimed, without a shred of support, that people with those patterns are mules. There's a reason the book was recalled by the publisher and re-edited to stay out of legal trouble. You can legally make lame theories and implications, but if you go too far you have to face the music in court.

 

[Hodad]

29 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

First the obvious...

Your big smear is O'Keefe uses selected editing. Check out your video again. Tell me they're not doing that.

Next one is, nice suit, Liban. You've cleaned yourself up since your last appearance on video.

So you were ready for this appearance then.

And now we hear that what we saw on video we didn't actually see. This for instance:

Apparently that was just Liban making general comments about politics. 

Also that report on Fox 9 lies. It says Minnesota allowed collecting multiple ballots for a brief period. That's a lie. Other "news" sources you would rely on have been forced to retract that lie.

https://www.projectveritas.com/video/retraction-323-newsweeks-darragh-roche-corrects-fact-that-ballot-harvesting/

https://www.projectveritas.com/news/james-okeefe-demands-new-york-times-retract-hit-piece-on-veritas-minnesota/

So a provable lawbreaker tells us he didn't break the law. And this is your superior evidence is it?

O'Keefe is a "provable lawbreaker" but you believe him? Which is is the problem. Your one-way credulity makes it easy for him to sucker you. Right now, for example, you've accused the local Fox channel of lying. Why? Because Project Veritas (known liars) told you something. But in fact, you are simply repeating their lies. Perhaps you should link to the retractions you claim?

A brief legal ruling allowed unlimited ballot harvesting for nearly 40 days this summer as the lawsuit continues.

Or read the judge's order here.

Indeed, the law was rendered moot through judicial review and ballot collection was therefore legal during that period. 

One might wonder what dates the video was filmed, but since Project Veritas knows you and the rest of their audience aren't really concerned with the details of quality journalism they didn't bother to include that documentation.