And now you're the one taking important context away! This is the full discussion:
<Rushy> Ahahahaahah
<George> As I said on the forum, this is most likely bullshit
<George> Be careful what kind of credibility you want to assume a notorious hoaxster like O'Keefe has
<Rushy> so the heads of Hillary's SuperPACs actively said this stuff just as a joke?
<George> I don't know what the context was
<Rushy> ...
<George> But it's a good bet this wasn't any kind of candid admission at all
<George> O'Keefe is a liar, and when his targets don't say what he wants them to say, he distorts his videos to make it seem like they are
<Rushy> the videos make it clear they were giving advice to people on how to harass supporters and set up events to cause incidents
<George> No, the videos do not make anything clear
<Rushy> these are the same people who helped crush bernie
<George> You're seeing what O'Keefe wants you to see, nothing more, nothing less
<Rushy> what context makes this advice okay
<George> I don't know, nor should I have to know given his reputation
<Rushy> at any time, when is it okay to have a PAC advise its employees to harass people at events?
<Rushy> this is the worst case of cognitive dissonance I've ever seen
<George> If I see a magician perform a spectacular magic trick, I don't have to know exactly how it was done to reason that it was nothing more than illusion
<George> Again, this guy has a history of distorting videos so that they appear like this
<Rushy> you realize you can admit Hillary and her campaign are corrupt without liking trump, right?
<Rushy> there is solid proof she stole the election from the person you voted for
<Rushy> she smashed democracy
<Rushy> people like you are the reason people like her keep getting away with this shit
<Rushy> because you don't care
<George> Not accepting evidence from an extremely tainted source is hardly indicative of not caring
<Rushy> they're videos you dumbass
<Rushy> have you even watched them
<Rushy> or have you just determined its all part of a vast right wing conspiracy
<Rushy> how deep does it go?
<Rushy> is wikileaks all just fake now, too?
<George> Yes, I watched them
<George> This is what O'Keefe does, he makes videos
<Rushy> under what context is it okay to say what they said?
<Rushy> when is it okay to say things like this saddam
<George> I don't know any more than I know how a magician does a magic trick
<Rushy> ffs
<Rushy> so you can't explain the videos away
<Rushy> you've just convinced yourself they must somehow magically be fake
<Rushy> you're literally resorting to a magic analogy
<George> But don't worry, there will be an investigation, because Congress is gullible and they keep falling for O'Keefe's stunts
<Rushy> this makes no sense at all
<Rushy> I've never seen you so extremely defeated by a set of evidene but still persist in defending someone who has wronged you on every level imaginable
<George> And I'm almost certain that the end result will be that, once again, O'Keefe twisted and distorted the footage to push a narrative not supported by the actual events
<George> Okay, fine
<George> You want an explanation? Here's one
<George> The two of them were planning a novel they were going to write together about a corrupt campaign
<George> Or at least O'Keefe told him he wanted to plan a novel with him
<Rushy> my god saddam
<Rushy> This is too much
<Rushy> nice trolling
<George> Okay, I can do a better context
<George> The target realized what O'Keefe was doing, began winding him up by candidly admitting to this level of theatrics, only to end with whatever the middle-aged white guy equivalent of Bel-Airing a paragraph is
<George> As in, he told him he was full of shit and to get lost
<Rushy> so the target was smart enough to realize he was being filmed but dumb enough to say things that would be wrong to say in any context
<George> Maybe he didn't know he was being filmed
<George> Or even if he did, that O'Keefe would be so shameless as to cut off the end
<George> I'll admit, I could be wrong
<George> This could be the one time that O'Keefe really did stumble upon a genuine scandal
<George> But if it is, then it'll be his first
<George> It's basically the boy who cried wolf as far as I'm concerned
<Rushy> The problem you're facing here is attacking the source instead of the argument
<Rushy> the videos are there, that's plain to see
<George> Yes, because the source taints the argument
<Rushy> and without resorting to some very extreme and nonsensical contexts, the evidence is damning
<George> And all we have are a few out-of-context snippets
<Rushy> but many of the videos are 30-40 seconds long
<Rushy> and none of your context examples make any sense
<George> Okay
<George> But this guy has done this before
<Rushy> yet that doesn't explain away the videos
<George> He manipulates video footage to make innocent groups/people look bad for a living
<George> I'm not going to just trust that this latest one hasn't been similarly doctored
<Rushy> but this matches exactly what wikileaks says
<Rushy> this is simply video evidence supporting an argument that's already been around for a while
<George> Sure, sure
<George> This'll be the one time a notorious liar is telling the truth
<George> Never heard all this before
<Parsifal> How is Saddam this much of a retard no offence
<George> When the investigation inevitably clears the people involved, I'll gloat about this exchange
<Parsifal> hmm
<Parsifal> Except having a correct conclusion doesn't make your argument sensible
<Rushy> the only thing I'll say is that O'Keefe should release the full videos
<Rushy> but unfortunately that's thousands of gigabytes of data
<Parsifal> Rushy I think you mean terabytes
<Rushy> actually I just mean bytes
<Rushy> just a lot of them
<George> And even more unfortunately, it would reveal far too much context