Acorn

[Please visit our sponsor:]

[dps]

Acorn organizing the community.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOw-yOLstRQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjiL6uGT--8

David

[Ron Tisdale]

Oh please...These weren't even full time employees... Idiots....but part time Idiots.

Best,
Ron
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/10/acorn.prostitution/index.html
Sonja Merchant-Jones, chair of Baltimore City ACORN, told CNN affiliate WMAR-TV that the fired workers were seasonal, part-time employees and that no senior ACORN staff members were in the building at the time the film was made.

Scott Levenson, a spokesman at ACORN's national offices said, "The portrayal is false and defamatory and an attempt at 'gotcha journalism.'

"This film crew tried to pull this sham at other offices and failed. ACORN wants to see the full video before commenting further," Levenson said.

[dps]

Oh please...These weren't even full time employees... Idiots....but part time Idiots.

Best,
Ron
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/10/acorn.prostitution/index.html

More ACORN idiots,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVDi7SH0ofo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGoHGDCdPek

[lbb]

Weak, David.

Hmm, think I'll start a thread about right-wing advocates of suspending Americans' civil liberties...

[Mike Sigman]

Weak, David.

Hmm, think I'll start a thread about right-wing advocates of suspending Americans' civil liberties...If "right-wing advocates" have as many criminal charges and indictments against them as ACORN does, I think they're fair game. What interests me is the immediate trivialization by leftists of anyone speaking ill of ACORN.

I've been recently watching the Dem buzz-phrase of the day coming out as "after all, we're a nation of laws", as they attempt to defend the recently announced probe into the CIA enhanced-interrogations (none of which broached any legal definition of "torture"). The "we're a nation of laws" coming from the left, who are famous for ignoring and not enforcing drug laws, immigration laws, gun laws (when a Dem is involved), classified-secrets laws, etc., seems to emphasize more how dumbed-down the U.S. than to make any real sense.

ACORN, the child of the Democratic Party, has been charged, indicted, convicted, etc., for years in respect to illegal acts. Why trivialize a couple of more illegal acts.... why not call for their investigation? After all, "we're a nation of laws", and laws shouldn't be something that are only applied in partisan cases. ;)

Mike

[Michael Varin]

If "right-wing advocates" have as many criminal charges and indictments against them as ACORN does, I think they're fair game. What interests me is the immediate trivialization by leftists of anyone speaking ill of ACORN.

Good call, Mike.

We really need to be able to look at "our" party as critically as we do the "other" party.

Maybe then we would see how similar they are, and quit allowing them to play us.

[lbb]

If "right-wing advocates" have as many criminal charges and indictments against them as ACORN does, I think they're fair game.

Then LOOK OUT.

What interests me is the immediate trivialization by leftists of anyone speaking ill of ACORN.
Typical right-wing tactic: throw sand about the state of someone else's underwear. People in glass houses and all that, Mike. ACORN never tortured anyone.

Screw up on an epic scale for eight straight years and it's got to be someone else's fault. Tired, tired, TIRED.

Thread full of fail.

[Mike Sigman]

Typical right-wing tactic: throw sand about the state of someone else's underwear. People in glass houses and all that, Mike. ACORN never tortured anyone.

Screw up on an epic scale for eight straight years and it's got to be someone else's fault. Tired, tired, TIRED.
"ACORN never tortured anyone"????? By gum, if you're going to torture logic with that sort of comment, you need to be brought up on charges yourself, Mary! ;)

If these vague "right wing" people break the law, fry 'em. If ACORN breaks the law, don't let them off because they're Democrats. If someone breaks the laws about "torture", fry 'em, too.... but don't call everything you don't agree with "torture", "civil rights", etc., in an effort to make something stick. Apply the law to everyone equally and appropriately.

I realize that's a strange concept.

Mike

[C. David Henderson]

Hi Mike,

I agree with your justice-should-be-[politically]-blind position completely.

I take it then you support an investigation into the many "detainees" who died from abuse ("torture" or not) while in US custody as much as ACORN workers accused of voting registration irregularities?

Would you also agree that, faced with evidence of a crime of fraud and a homicide it might make sense to make the second a prosecutorial priority?

Best,

David H

[Mike Sigman]

I take it then you support an investigation into the many "detainees" who died from abuse ("torture" or not) while in US custody Er.... that was pretty vague, David. How many detainees died from "abuse" and under what circumstances? And how in the world is that germane to a conversation about ACORN, other than as an attempt to deflect the conversation from a group that has notoriously flaunted the law but should perhaps be given a pass because they're Democrats? When the laws only apply at whim and convenience (think of the recent Black Panthers episode), we're heading toward a civil uprising.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

[C. David Henderson]

General, vague -- okay, no problems.

Sorry I don't have time to research and post references, but the point was in response to your own. So if you see it as a distraction, that's okay too; chalk it down to my misunderstanding of your own post.

For the record, I don't have a position about ACORN, and my impression, ill-informed though you may view it, is that, even assuming crimes were committed by ACORN workers, the reason the situation made the news is because it resonnates politically with the right. (That doesn't assume it's groundless by the way).

As you know from our previous conversations, I do have a position about the whole "torture" debate. Maybe that's what prompted my response.

The Justice Department has always been politicized to a greater or lesser extent. In around 2006, a greater one. Currently, if anything, I suspect a number of ideologues hired by Monica Gooding et al. are holding career civil service posts. So cheer up, there's a nature check against left-wing dominance of prosecution decisions.

As for civil uprisings, what do you mean? By whom? Teabaggers?

Remember, it's an insult to right-thinking Americans to suggest an uptick in right-wing violence following the 08 election -- the right says so.

Take care and good health to you.

[Mike Sigman]

For the record, I don't have a position about ACORN, and my impression, ill-informed though you may view it, is that, even assuming crimes were committed by ACORN workers, the reason the situation made the news is because it resonnates politically with the right. (That doesn't assume it's groundless by the way). My impression, born from by various readings over time, is that ACORN is a group that was fostered by national Democrats and which has a history of coercion to force corporations and civil organizations to do their bidding; they've been protected from investigations by Democrat members of Congress, repeatedly. I would hope that justice would apply at some time to ACORN, despite congressional friends, and that justice is not something that just "resonates politically with the right". See John Conyers recent remark that he was backing off his call for an investigation into ACORN because of pressure from on high.

As you know from our previous conversations, I do have a position about the whole "torture" debate. Maybe that's what prompted my response. I vaguely remember something about that, but not much. I assume a lot of people debate positions arbitrarily and whimsically, just as I do. ;)

The Justice Department has always been politicized to a greater or lesser extent. In around 2006, a greater one. Well, if you look at how many investigations into Democrats that Janet Reno stopped cold, I think you're missing a good example. Regardless, in my view, if someone actually politically pulls strings with the law, Left or Right, they need to be called to account. Bear in mind that I mean more than just accusations of impropriety... if the *deeds* warrant it, go after the perpetrator, whether Dem or Repub. As for civil uprisings, what do you mean? By whom? Teabaggers?

Remember, it's an insult to right-thinking Americans to suggest an uptick in right-wing violence following the 08 election -- the right says so.

Take care and good health to you.You lost me on whatever the implications of those sentences were meant to be.

Regards,

Mike

[dps]

The Justice Department has always been politicized to a greater or lesser extent. In around 2006, a greater one.

An even greater one in 1993 when President Clinton fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys.

David

[Marc Abrams]

Folks:

This partisan debate get mindless when people tend to forget the smell of their own backsides.

BOTH parties are totally corrupt and beholden to a variety of big businesses, special interest groups, .....

If people really want to voice their upset, then we should be VERY DISTURBED that the Supreme Court, run by a group of people who alleged to be strict and not read into our constitution and bill of rights, is ready to extend the right to influence peddling/"free speech" to Corporations and other special interest groups. I don't know about you folks, but I never remember reading "We The People Inc.....

Marc Abrams

[dps]

ACORN in Brooklyn;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrpRGZq7Z-U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLSbE9uKwpQ

David

[C. David Henderson]

An even greater one in 1993 when President Clinton fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys.

David

To say something Clinton might have uttered -- that dog just won't hunt.;)

That was at the beginning of his first term, and there were never any allegations that any were fired because they failed to return indictments against incumbent Republicans. Nor were there any allegations that Clinton's Justice Department vetted career prosecutors using a political litmus test, including whether the person was a registered democrat. Nor is there any evidence that a senior justice official in the Clinton administration was visited in the hospital by White House offiicals and pressured to sign documents while recovering from a major illness

[Mike Sigman]

To say something Clinton might have uttered -- that dog just won't hunt.;)

That was at the beginning of his first term, and there were never any allegations that any were fired because they failed to return indictments against incumbent Republicans. Nor were there any allegations that Clinton's Justice Department vetted career prosecutors using a political litmus test, including whether the person was a registered democrat. Nor is there any evidence that a senior justice official in the Clinton administration was visited in the hospital by White House offiicals and pressured to sign documents while recovering from a major illnessWell, in terms of politics and the Clintons, there's this:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009784

I often think of the Clinton presidency as the one where all pretense of journalistic impartiality and ethics was simply abandoned... there was simply too much to hide if one was trying to be impartial, so the mainstream media simply refused to investigate. Notice how the MSM refuses to look into ACORN, Dodd, Rangel, Obama's history (nothing is reported that he didn't write himself in his *two* autobiographies written before he was 45), and so on. Clinton was where the choice was made that "the right thing to do" is hide information harmful to Democrats (aka "Swiftboating"). :D

However, let me note that the topic of "ACORN" continues to be something people seem to want to trivialize, but not discuss. ;)

FWIW

Mike

[Mike Sigman]

How about that... the piece in the WSJ also referenced ACORN and says this about ACORN and David's home state:

In New Mexico, another state in which recent elections have been decided by razor thin margins, U.S. Attorney David Iglesias did establish a voter fraud task force in 2004. But it lasted all of 10 weeks before closing its doors, despite evidence of irregularities by the likes of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or Acorn. As our John Fund reported at the time, Acorn's director Matt Henderson refused to answer questions in court about whether his group had illegally made copies of voter registration cards in the run-up to the 2004 election.

David, you're a lawyer and you're in Santa Fe... surely you're aware that there are plenty of questions about the ethics in the ACORN organization?

Best.

Mike

[mathewjgano]

After reading briefly about ACORN on wikipedia (I always cringe alittle when I use them as a reference, FWIW) it sounds as if ACORN is a rather large organization comprised of many tiers of interaction. I could see where this might answer some of the issues brought up in this thread, though I'm not familiar with any particulars. In groups as large as ACORN my cynical side says there are some criminals (i.e. people who regularly intend to engage in illegal activities), let alone good people who make relatively isolated mistakes (big or small). In all cases where illegal action is suspected, investigation should be promoted, but to me, attacking the ACORN organization en masse seems to invite those who would defend its positive effects. This kind of minimizing the negative is found on both sides of the aisle in nearly equal proprotions, as I see it...plus, it's a natural response to something which is admittedly both good and bad, but which may seem to do more good than bad.
And FWIW I'd love to see political conversations devoid of personalities. "Left" and "right" both evoke emotional responses and are hyperbolic by nature which always seems to make coversations go in strange directions.

[C. David Henderson]

Hi Mike,

The angle of the story your quote overlooks is the major theme here in my home state. To the detail involved in the quote provided, assuming for the sake of polite discussion that it is accurate, I unapologetically admit my ignorance.

David Iglesias was a Bush appointee with an inspirational background and excellent reviews from the Justice Department leading up to the 2006 elections. During the campaign, Iglesias received a telephone call from Congresswoman Heather Wilson, who was locked in a close race for reelection against former State Attorney General Patricia Madrid.

Wilson questioned why there had been no federal indictments handed down related to allegations of corruption on the part of Democratic officials in State government. Iglesias terminated the call, believing it was an improper contact by an elected official.

Soon thereafter, he received another call, this time from long-time, influential, Republican US Senator Pete Dominici. Dominici also pressured Iglesias to issue indictments, which conversation in essence, the Senator later admitted after the customary preliminary denials.

Following Dominici's unsuccessful efforts to better the Republican election chances, Karl Rove received complaints from Wilson and Dominici. Soon thereafter Iglesias's name appears on the to-be-axed list, and soon after that he was fired.

It is my impression that recent congressional testimony on this issue corroborated the substance of the allegations, but I don't recall the details.

This is why the US attorney scandal matters, irrespective of your views of ACORN, or the Bush Administration, or the Clinton Administration.

To intervene in specific, politically charged cases, and punish prosecutors who failed to issue indictments that pleased incumbent Republican elected officials in close reelection campaigns -- Mike, you're a fair man, you tell me, is that a good thing?

Moreover, since you (sort of) asked me, I trust David Iglesias' judgment as a career prosecutor over any press coverage, from the WSJ, the Grey Lady, or Better Homes and Gardens. Part of that stems from my experience as an attorney that the Press always gets this kind of thing wrong, or half-wrong, or confused. The other part of it stems, just like my assessment of credibility in our waterboarding discussion stemmed, from looking at motives.

Here's a guy with excellent job evaluations as US Attorney. He had to know that if the facts supported the indictments in question, he had everything to gain personally by going forward, but that if he did nothing, he faced potential career ramifications -- which in fact he eventually suffered.

So, if you want to insist that ACORN has committed a crime in NM because the Wall Street Journal says so -- again okay. Not only do we appear to live in somewhat parallel universes of factual snippets, thanks to the world-wide intertubes, I still am not convinced I should be excited about this issue.

And while you may or may not sympathize with guys like Iglesias, competent Republican officials thrown under the bus, they aren't even the real problem.

The real problem is the public perception if not the reality that the US Attorneys who weren't selectively fired were just men and women with a more acute appreciation for calibrating their professional ethics to suit the political moment.

It's my recollection that in fact questionable indictments and at least one since overturned conviction of democratic candidates did in fact occur.

I'm sure that settled everything.

Best,

cdh

[Mike Sigman]

The angle of the story your quote overlooks is the major theme here in my home state. To the detail involved in the quote provided, assuming for the sake of polite discussion that it is accurate, I unapologetically admit my ignorance.

David Iglesias was a Bush appointee with an inspirational background and excellent reviews from the Justice Department leading up to the 2006 elections. This is the problem with giving "excellent reviews". After you give them, you're forever open to a lawsuit if you fire someone. Seen it happen many a time. ;)


During the campaign, Iglesias received a telephone call from Congresswoman Heather Wilson, who was locked in a close race for reelection against former State Attorney General Patricia Madrid.

Wilson questioned why there had been no federal indictments handed down related to allegations of corruption on the part of Democratic officials in State government. Iglesias terminated the call, believing it was an improper contact by an elected official.

Soon thereafter, he received another call, this time from long-time, influential, Republican US Senator Pete Dominici. Dominici also pressured Iglesias to issue indictments, which conversation in essence, the Senator later admitted after the customary preliminary denials.

Following Dominici's unsuccessful efforts to better the Republican election chances, Karl Rove received complaints from Wilson and Dominici. Soon thereafter Iglesias's name appears on the to-be-axed list, and soon after that he was fired.

It is my impression that recent congressional testimony on this issue corroborated the substance of the allegations, but I don't recall the details. I just glanced at the details in order to refresh my memory. As you know, New Mexico is a hotbed of corruption. There's apparently more to the Iglesias-Madrid connection that has just come out in the last few days, so neither one of us can talk completely about *what* happened in a still-ongoing case. The question is ACORN and whether they were pulling illegal shenanigans in New Mexico; your answer deflects once again from the ACORN question and goes on toward another topic.
This is why the US attorney scandal matters, irrespective of your views of ACORN, or the Bush Administration, or the Clinton Administration. I recognize your position on the U.S. Attorney topic, David, but your argument is not compelling or complete, hence I regard it as aside from the ACORN discussion. ;) Moreover, since you (sort of) asked me, I trust David Iglesias' judgment as a career prosecutor over any press coverage, from the WSJ, the Grey Lady, or Better Homes and Gardens. Part of that stems from my experience as an attorney that the Press always gets this kind of thing wrong, or half-wrong, or confused. The other part of it stems, just like my assessment of credibility in our waterboarding discussion stemmed, from looking at motives. Well, I agree with your evaluation of the Press; I have worse views, though. When I had access to some aspects of military intelligence I was simply blown away by the often deliberate distortions the press makes in order to "shape public opinion". Regardless, there is such a history of ethical and legal shenanigans at ACORN that you surely wouldn't defend them, would you? So, if you want to insist that ACORN has committed a crime in NM because the Wall Street Journal says so -- again okay. Not only do we appear to live in somewhat parallel universes of factual snippets, thanks to the world-wide intertubes, I still am not convinced I should be excited about this issue. It's very easy for either one of us to source the NM charges about ACORN. "Convince" should be a simple matter of looking it up.
And while you may or may not sympathize with guys like Iglesias, competent Republican officials thrown under the bus, they aren't even the real problem.

The real problem is the public perception if not the reality that the US Attorneys who weren't selectively fired were just men and women with a more acute appreciation for calibrating their professional ethics to suit the political moment. Are you suggesting that US Attorneys can not and should not be fired at the discretion of POTUS? I've never heard anyone complain until it became a part of the Dem witchhunt of things Bush. This is where I think Bush was weak, BTW. He tried to be open in the face of what was undoubtedly an attack on him; it cost him. I have yet, BTW, to see any Democrat complain about the voting fraud that was perpetrated in Washington state... the Dem legislature blocked any investigation of the irregularities. I would have screamed whether it was Repubs or Dems, in that one. I honestly don't tolerate crooks from either side.
It's my recollection that in fact questionable indictments and at least one since overturned conviction of democratic candidates did in fact occur.

I'm sure that settled everything.
Good. Ever done any reading on ACORN? Curious about why a congressional investigation was blocked? As I said, I tend to think crooks on either side should be rooted out. Not everyone really agrees with me, though. ;)

FWIW

Mike

[C. David Henderson]

Regardless, there is such a history of ethical and legal shenanigans at ACORN that you surely wouldn't defend them, would you?

I don't know -- I've defended some pretty shady characters -- police officers, judges, even an attorney or two. Don't underestimate me.

Are you suggesting that US Attorneys can not and should not be fired at the discretion of POTUS?

Straw man, Straight Shooter.

And yes, what I described arguably could constitute the violation of federal law (meaning he "can't"), and violates long standing understandings about the desireability of separating and protecting prosecutorial decisions and raw politics (meaning he shouldn't).

As I said, I tend to think crooks on either side should be rooted out. Not everyone really agrees with me, though. ;)

Do you think I said that? Odd, I didn't.

[Mike Sigman]

Heh. Actually, I don't think you've said anything definative, David. ;) Arguably, if your aunt had testes she'd be your uncle.

Best.

Mike

[C. David Henderson]

Is this where I'm supposed to get offended, or cave and buy in to the terms of debate you've unilaterally declared?

Mike, Mike, Mike.

I start by saying ACORN doesn't light me up, and allude to the US attorney scandal.

In response to my post to David, you then direct a question to me about Iglesias; I responded that you were missing the forest for the acorn.

I gave you a detailed factual account.

You then suggest that I am OT because you're not convinced, that there is some vague "new information" (from the WSJ??) about Iglesias (a Rep.) and Madrid (a Dem), and reasserting without any factual details, that ACORN is really, really, really BAD.

You agree strongly the press is not to be trusted (which you assure me you know better than I do), but then prove your points about ACORN by links to the WSJ.

When I respond without taking your bait, and talking about what you want to talk about, we get allusions to my family and my masculinity?

My aunt is a nice person, by the way. You might like her. She has a grown son and two grown daughters, with grandkids. No signs of genetic anomolies. Got kids of my own, too -- no special procedures involved.

Dude, I thought I'd gotten rid of that tatoo that said "STUPID" on my forehead. Should I ask for a refund?

Take care and stay well.

[Mike Sigman]

Is this where I'm supposed to get offended, or cave and buy in to the terms of debate you've unilaterally declared?
I've declared no terms for anything. Sorry. Obviously ACORN is not something you want to discuss.

Mike

[C. David Henderson]

No problems. If we were in a bar I'd buy the next round.

[Mike Sigman]

Just caught on Instapundit that the Senate has voted to defund ACORN. Not sure if the House will, given that 20 percent of the House is composed of New York and California representatives (something to think about if you're one of those who think the electoral college is a bad idea).

[Tim Fong]

Personally what I'm really worried about these days is another militant group on the horizon, WALNUT. Sources say that the group is made up of radical islamo-fascist communist squirrels that hate people. I got a chain email from a friend that said that Obama is planning to enlist the squirrels in a civilian tree security force.

Next thing you know, they'll be in your yard, cutting your trees.

Don't say you weren't warned.

[Mike Sigman]

This is a great example that fits a long-ago discussion on Open Discussions. Notice how the MSM is simply refusing to cover the Senate defunding of ACORN, the videos, and so forth. Being crooked, for years, has never offended most of the Left about ACORN, but it helps if the media simply refuses to report things. If the public isn't dumbed-down enough, add to the problem by filtering information.

And hey, I lived in a town once where religion was a big factor to many people and the local paper filtered the news in order to give religion a boost. I complained vocally about that, too. It takes a certain contempt for people for the media to deliberately filter the news like the public is too dumb to be able to handle it. Oops... don't get me started. ;)

Mike

[MM]

Seems that it is now 4 ACORN offices that have been caught.


Employees at no fewer than four ACORN offices have been caught on videotape advising a man and a woman on how to skirt federal law to obtain housing and operate a brothel ...

Adding to that, from here:
http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/14/acorns-lawless-ways/#more-1970


The testimony will come soon from former ACORN Las Vegas field director Christopher Edwards. Charged with election fraud by Nevada's Democratic attorney general, he cut a deal last month with prosecutors and has pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy to commit the crime of compensation for registration of voters.

Sentencing is scheduled for Nov. 17.

ACORN stands accused of enforcing voter registration quotas with its employees and offering bonuses for extra registrations. Nevada law forbids the use of such incentives on the theory it encourages canvassers to file fraudulent registrations. No wonder: ACORN registers "Mickey Mouse" and various celebrities, out-of-state residents, and dead people, every election cycle.

As part of the plea deal, Edwards, whom state investigators consider to be the mastermind of the incentive program, has agreed to testify against former regional director, Amy Busefink, and against ACORN, which is a co-defendant. The Las Vegas Sun reported that Edwards acknowledged he conspired with Busefink and ACORN to create the "Blackjack" incentive program that gave canvassers an extra $5 for submitting 21 or more registration cards each day. The daily quota was allegedly 20 forms.


From:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/us/10acorn.html


In the wake of an embezzlement scandal that rocked the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or Acorn, two of its board members are seeking a court order to force it to hand over financial documents.

They also are seeking to sever what they describe as continuing ties between Acorn and its founder, Wade Rathke, who resigned after it became public this summer that his brother had embezzled almost $1 million from the organization eight years ago. They contend that Mr. Rathke continues to direct the staff and expenditures.


http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/s_584284.html


Accusations of voter fraud have followed ACORN's canvassing projects in about a dozen states. ACORN has dismissed the charges as politically motivated allegations from conservative groups, yet cases are pending and, in other cases, ACORN workers have entered guilty pleas. For example, three ACORN workers pleaded guilty to submitting phony voter registration forms in Washington, and eight ACORN employees pleaded guilty to federal election fraud in Missouri.

That's just the tip of the iceberg in the news ... You have to wonder how deep the rabbit hole goes ...

[Mike Sigman]

Notice that the SEIU and ACORN are inextricably intertwined, often with offices and officers of both being the same people and places. Since these organs are actually important, but corrupt, arms of the Democratic Party, Dems will make every attempt to sweep it under the rug. And the usual silence, trivialization, and demonization of whistle-blowers will come from the Left.

http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/16/seiu-is-one-of-the-pillars-of-the-acorn-family/

[Ron Tisdale]

ACORN is fine to discuss...if one stays focused and on topic.

The point about the clips in question is not that ACORN should get a free pass. Obviously, what these idiots did was stupid and most likely illegal, and I hope the ***individuals*** involved are prosecuted.

What get's rediculous, is blaming the entire organization for what a couple of chumps did (and they were fired for what they did...or didn't anyone notice that).

Now, given the repeated issues of individual employees being fired for such lapses, I think a strong case can be made that the management level at ACORN is incompetent.

I do not, however, think that makes them criminally liable. I could be wrong....but I don't think so. As far as legitamate investigations go, have at it, as far as I'm concerned. But I wouldn't leave that up to right wing nut jobs, myself. I'd get someone both qualified and in authority to do it. :eek:

Best,
Ron

[Mike Sigman]

I do not, however, think that makes them criminally liable. I could be wrong....but I don't think so. As far as legitamate investigations go, have at it, as far as I'm concerned. But I wouldn't leave that up to right wing nut jobs, myself. I'd get someone both qualified and in authority to do it. :eek:Hi Ron:

Given the numerous criminal indictments, prosecutions, etc., of ACORN employees, charges from the past president of ACORN about criminal conduct in ACORN, the intertwined "union" connections of ACORN (remember that Obama de-funded the office that investigates financial shenanigans in unions, a few months ago), and so on, you don't think there are any criminal issues? Does the fact that Democrats have consistently blocked investigation into ACORN not ring a bell?

Most of all.... why go the route of adding a phrase like "right wing nut jobs" to your point? Ever since Robert Bork was publicly and wrongly villified simply to make a political point, I think this habit of denigrating legitimate opposition has gotten out of hand and much worse. Not everyone who questions ACORN, Obama, etc., is a "nut job", an "extremist", or a "racist". Instead of the name-calling dying down after the Dems got in power, it's gotten far worse.

Best.

Mike

[Ron Tisdale]

Not everyone is...but the people doing those videos are, and that is who I am talking about.

Them and the birthers need to get a life of their own.

But you are correct, the name calling does no good...

Best,
Ron

[Mike Sigman]

Not everyone is...but the people doing those videos are, and that is who I am talking about.

Now, now, Ron... let's don't go "L.A. Times" on us poor mortals. ;)

http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/2009/09/16/no-double-standard-here/

[MM]

Yet a fifth surfaces ...

San Diego ...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,551163,00.html

After this, the embezzlement, the hidden political paid endorsement, and all the convictions of voter fraud in multiple states, you have to wonder if this is really just individual people or a business model?

[Ron Tisdale]

Hmmm...good point Mike. I'll have to think about that.

Best,
Ron

[mathewjgano]

Well the "right" wins the first round: NPR just did a brief piece on the growing allegations aimed at ACORN this morning. It appears the "left" has been forced into acknowledging it. And now that NPR has commented on it: what's up with all these questionable ACORN activities huh?! I'm outraged. ;)
If there's a reluctance by the media to comment on ACORN, do you suppose it has to do with the idea that it represents social progress (in terms of trying to ensure an American basic standard of living)? ...Kinda like ratting on a nice guy? I'm not asking this as some kind of possible allowance for such behavior, I'm just curious what people think about why it's taking place.
Glen Beck said ACORN is corrupt "from top to bottom," and I take this as the basic argument against "ACORN," but where corruption is concerned you can say this about the republican party and any other organization with so many people in it so I fail to see the difference. Why not the same level of outcry? The head of ACORN, I believe, said this outcry against it is just a well-concerted right-wing attack on an organization that's been doing good for 40 years. I think that's a gross oversimplification, but so is the Beck argument.

[MM]

Well the "right" wins the first round: NPR just did a brief piece on the growing allegations aimed at ACORN this morning. It appears the "left" has been forced into acknowledging it. And now that NPR has commented on it: what's up with all these questionable ACORN activities huh?! I'm outraged. ;)
If there's a reluctance by the media to comment on ACORN, do you suppose it has to do with the idea that it represents social progress (in terms of trying to ensure an American basic standard of living)? ...Kinda like ratting on a nice guy? I'm not asking this as some kind of possible allowance for such behavior, I'm just curious what people think about why it's taking place.


That's an easy one.

ACORN is a Democrat organization. Hence, the Main Stream Media (MSM) gives it a pass for as long as it can. Had it been a Republican (anyone *not* know who Joe Wilson is?) organization, it would have made MSM headlines for weeks. Historically proven to be true.

[Mike Sigman]

It appears the "left" has been forced into acknowledging it. And now that NPR has commented on it: what's up with all these questionable ACORN activities huh?! I'm outraged. ;)
If there's a reluctance by the media to comment on ACORN, do you suppose it has to do with the idea that it represents social progress (in terms of trying to ensure an American basic standard of living)? ...Kinda like ratting on a nice guy? I'm not asking this as some kind of possible allowance for such behavior, I'm just curious what people think about why it's taking place. So basically, if ACORN is breaking the law (and has been in many provable instances), it's OK for the press to not mention it because the law is not as important as perceived good? Depending on who is perceiving, too.

What it ultimately boils down to is that laws do not apply, are not enforced, etc., depending upon some group decides as when a law should apply. I don't have a problem with that "let's choose the laws we want to apply" approach, as long as no one objects to when I pick and choose the laws I want to respect. I assure you that I'm basically a good person, so there's your "perceived good" in not applying the laws to me. ;)

Glen Beck said ACORN is corrupt "from top to bottom," and I take this as the basic argument against "ACORN," but where corruption is concerned you can say this about the republican party and any other organization with so many people in it so I fail to see the difference. Why not the same level of outcry? The head of ACORN, I believe, said this outcry against it is just a well-concerted right-wing attack on an organization that's been doing good for 40 years. I think that's a gross oversimplification, but so is the Beck argument.Er, instead of just asserting that the republican party is corrupt, as a deflection to ACORN's problems, how about posting a video, etc., to prove it? But maybe it belongs on a thread about Republicans rather than as a "they do it too" argument to defend ACORN? :D

FWIW

Mike

[Mike Sigman]

That's an easy one.

ACORN is a Democrat organization. Hence, the Main Stream Media (MSM) gives it a pass for as long as it can. Had it been a Republican (anyone *not* know who Joe Wilson is?) organization, it would have made MSM headlines for weeks. Historically proven to be true.Most of my Demcratic buddies goes fairly silent when I point out some of these cases. When I ask why they don't complain, because these things make Dems look like complicit crooks as a whole, there is more silence. I think it boils down to that simple idea of "he may be a crook but he's *our* crook". In other words, ethics is far overridden by partisanship. The Republican Party has gradually been moving toward saying "OK, let's all play". And I think they should. It's ultimately going to come to some civil uproar and think we should just get it over rather than dragging it out for years. Take the pressure off; vent the steam. ;) Probably move a lot of people out of the MTV mode when a little reality starts happening. Be good for the country. :rolleyes:

Mike (poking a little fun) Sigman

[Ron Tisdale]

Mike (poking a little fun) Sigman

Yeah, but you're doing it so well...damn it! ;)

B,
R

[mathewjgano]

So basically, if ACORN is breaking the law (and has been in many provable instances), it's OK for the press to not mention it because the law is not as important as perceived good?

No. I'm not asking this as some kind of possible allowance for such behavior, I'm just curious what people think about why it's taking place.

Er, instead of just asserting that the republican party is corrupt, as a deflection to ACORN's problems, how about posting a video, etc., to prove it?
Are you calling my point about inequal concern on both sides of the proverbial aisle for corruption a deflection in order to deflect its validity? People who take advantage of groups who are supposed to be helping people in need deserve the fullest application of the law.

But maybe it belongs on a thread about Republicans rather than as a "they do it too" argument to defend ACORN? :D

FWIW
Mike

Why can't I defend ACORN and denounce corrupt people within it at the same time?

[mathewjgano]

Are you calling my point about inequal concern on both sides of the proverbial aisle for corruption a deflection in order to deflect its validity?
Oops...meant to say the concern is roughly equal...in other words saying that the case of, "but he's our crook," operates fully in both sides. It's not an effort to excuse, it's just an observation.

[Mike Sigman]

Oops...meant to say the concern is roughly equal...in other words saying that the case of, "but he's our crook," operates fully in both sides. It's not an effort to excuse, it's just an observation.Oh, pooh. It's not the same. Not that the Repubs are perfect, but they'll at least investigate, appoint special counsels, etc., and throw any exposed law-breakers under the bus. Dems have a tendency to not investigate, sweep under the rug, etc. Watch the current mess with Rangel, Chris Dodd, Murtha, and many others.... notice how nothing substantive is being done by Pelosi. Remember the special counsel being appointed to look into Valerie Plame Wilson? Do you think Eric Holder will appoint a special council to look into ACORN, particularly given that Obama was a lawyer, trainer, payer, and user of ACORN services? No. Will you be calling for a special counsel? I doubt it. I'll guarantee you that if it was someone like Bush or Reagan *I'd* be calling for an investigation (to be fair, I wasn't a particular fan of either one, though). If laws only apply one way, your way, then let's everyone play it that way. It's time to decide whether being a "country of laws" is true or just handy lip-service when we're trying to screw the other guy. ;)

[[Caution: Deliberate Chain-Jerking in Progress]] :rolleyes:

Mike

[Mike Sigman]

This "scrubbing" of a website is something that has been repeatedly (on numerous occasions) pointed out about the Obama campaign, since they were in campaign mode (which, unfortunately, is still now). It's seriously disgusting. At some point in time even the slowest-wits amongst us realized that there's an aspect of dishonesty that can't be condoned without being a complete and obvious hypocrite:

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/09/breaking-acorn-bombshell-4-due-from.html

I don't mind the political spin, what I mind is that lies accumulate and suddenly one day you're a prostitute because you tried to stay "faithful" to an attractive premise, even after it's obviously gone bad. And I said the same thing about Bush's supporters after Bush had obviously gone weak (in order to please... not to lie).

FWIW

Mike Sigman

[C. David Henderson]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2009/09/18/acorn/

Thoughts, Mike? ;)

I've gotten more up to speed about the big government sting over the last few days -- have to say, hilarious stuff. And worth investigating further, I'll concede.:eek:

It also appears the issue has passed the threshold where it can't be ignored by the MSM (or even the lefty blogosphere).

Best,

cdh

[Mike Sigman]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2009/09/18/acorn/

Thoughts, Mike? ;)

I've gotten more up to speed about the big government sting over the last few days -- have to say, hilarious stuff. And worth investigating further, I'll concede.:eek:

It also appears the issue has passed the threshold where it can't be ignored by the MSM (or even the lefty blogosphere).
David I don't have any thoughts about an article from "Salon" in the same way I wouldn't bother to read an article by Glenn Beck. Neither one of those sources would qualify as even "news", IMO.

I realize that there are some name-calling wars about various news outlets, but first a source has to qualify as a bona fide news source before I'd bother with it. After that I'd take a look at PEW's research data in order to get an idea how credible a source is. IIRC, the last PEW survey had some interesting comments about some of the major news and opinion outlets, particularly in terms of who's actually been caught fabricating news and had to publish corrections the most. Not to mention who's news has been the most "biased". ;)

I'm going to pass on the Leftwing "Salon" comments, thanks. I also don't listen to Rush Limbaugh (although I have a number of liberal friends who tell me that they listen to Limbaugh just so they can seethe. Amazing world). ;)

Best.

Mike

[C. David Henderson]

Okay.

Does http://directorblue.blogspot.com/200...-due-from.html make the grade?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,551163,00.html?


http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/2...standard-here/?

biggovernment.com?

Just asking.

[Mike Sigman]

Okay.

Does http://directorblue.blogspot.com/200...-due-from.html make the grade?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,551163,00.html?

http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/2...standard-here/?

biggovernment.com?

Just asking.Well, I've only seen directorblue occasionally and I'm not sure what it is well-enough to comment. If you dispute their facts that the Obama website was scrubbed, present a factual argument. The "scrubbing" of Obama's website has been mentioned a number of times since his campaign first began, BTW.

Fox News covered the ACORN story while the liberal media attempted to kill it by not covering it. That form of "gatekeeping" has now come back to haunt the MSM and even the CEO of the AP has made a speech or two saying that it has hurt the media, in today's information age where people can spot the gatekeeping easily. Gatekeeping is one of my benchmarks. Veracity and spin are something I watch for. How many times a media has been red-facedly caught manipulating facts (like CNN's relationship with Saddam Hussein or the Eason Jordan debacle). And so on. Most of my news I tend to get by jumping around the internet; not relying on just a few sources.

Pajamas Media is a conservative organization, but they don't use the name-calling and hyperbole that is rampant in the Salon article you mentioned. I'm sure that you learned how to quantify a certain amount of bias in media when you were in high-school... take a look at the Salon article and examine it for checkable facts and emotionally-indexed terms/name-calling.

Regardless, I realize that we're once again on the "ACORN" thread getting diverted to some other topic. I realize that you are reluctant to find any fault with ACORN, but focus, David, focus. ;) If you want to debate the media, it might be a good separate thread.

Best.

Mike

[C. David Henderson]

Mike, I try to focus, really I do. :o

It sounds like then you read the article from Salon?

I posted it because (a) like some of the other material that has been posted on this thread about ACORN it is an opinion piece, and (b) it seems echos what some other posters, including Ron, have suggested. (Sorry Ron, if I got that wrong.)

FWIW, I stopped reading Conason quite some time ago, because he seemed too partisan, even for me.

My only defense to reading him this time is because you got me somewhat interested in this subject, ironically. Mike, you made me do it.

Focus, focus, okay, sorry. Let's take this quote:

"Owing to the idiocy of a few ACORN employees, notoriously caught in a videotape 'sting' sponsored by a conservative Web site and publicized by Fox News, that campaign [against ACORN] has scored significant victories on Capitol Hill and in the media.

Both the Senate and the House have voted over the past few days to curtail any federal funding of ACORN's activities. While that congressional action probably won't destroy the group, whose funding does not mainly depend on government largesse, the ban inflicts severe damage on its reputation."

I suspect there are some statements here you might agree are factually accurate. Am I wrong?

Here, I think you'll likely disagree:

"Yet ACORN's troubles should be considered in the context of a history of honorable service to the dispossessed and impoverished. No doubt it was fun to dupe a few morons into providing tax advice to a 'pimp and ho,' but what ACORN actually does, every day, is help struggling families with the Earned Income Tax Credit (whose benefits were expanded by both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton). And while the idea of getting housing assistance for a brothel was clever, what ACORN really does, every day, is help those same working families avoid foreclosure and stay in their homes."

There are a number of largely factual assertions in the argument here -- are they false?

The following, I think, sums up what a lot of people on the left would say, and I admit, sums up my impression too at least up until now:

"Over the past several years, a handful of ACORN employees have admitted falsifying names and signatures on registration cards, in order to boost the pay they received. When ACORN officials discovered those cases, they informed the state authorities and turned in the miscreants. ... The proportion of fraud is infinitesimal. For example, a half-dozen ACORN workers were charged with registration fraud or other election-related crimes in the 2004 election. They had completed fewer than two dozen false registrations -- out of more than a million new voters registered by ACORN during that cycle. The mythology that suggests that thousands or even millions of illegal registrants voted is itself a fraud.

***
To claim that the stupid behavior of a half-dozen employees should discredit a national group with offices in more than 75 cities staffed by many thousands of employees and volunteers is like saying that Mark Sanford or John Ensign have discredited every Republican governor or senator. ...

ACORN has pledged to institute reforms, with the appointment of a distinguished outside panel to oversee that process. ..."

(Edited to remove more blantant Conasonisms.)

Are the factual assertions contained in last quote, in your view, false?

Here's where I'm currently at in my thinking:

To talk meaningfully about ACORN the organization, not individual ACORN employees who should be sacked and, if they committed possible crimes, criminally investigated, I'd want either evidence leading up the chain of command or evidence that any corruption was systematic, not isolated.

It's really the same dynamic as the torture debate (sorry, I'm not trying to change the subject, just make a point); is it a "few bad apples," or must it originate at a higher level. It's the same basic question to be asked if, say 60 minutes took a hidden camera to Midas to prove the chain were a bunch of rip-off artists, for that matter.

You may have circumstantial evidence that points in the direction of organizational responsibility that I either haven't heard or have overlooked. I certainly accept you've done much more research on this issue than I. Can you point me towards it?

Best,

cdh

[Mike Sigman]

My only defense to reading him this time is because you got me somewhat interested in this subject, ironically. Mike, you made me do it. When I'm serious, I'm a literalist, David. I suspect, based on having read some of your perspectives, that you're not a much of a literalist as I am. I haven't made you do anything... let's be clear about that. Slipping personal pronouns into a discussion is the first step to making an argument ad hominem, rather than issue-oriented. ;)

Focus, focus, okay, sorry. Let's take this quote:

"Owing to the idiocy of a few ACORN employees, notoriously caught in a videotape 'sting' sponsored by a conservative Web site and publicized by Fox News, that campaign [against ACORN] has scored significant victories on Capitol Hill and in the media.

Notice that illicit/illegal behavior becomes vaguely trivialized into the term "idiocy". I.e., nothing wrong was really done; it was just "idiocy" and only done by a "few". How few people in ACORN have been demonstrably involved in illegal activity over a number of years? Can you spot the bias and skewing of the truth? That's not facts; there are a number of websites that fully list the numbers of ACORN employees and administrators that have been involved in legally questionable/wrong conduct.
I suspect there are some statements here you might agree are factually accurate. Am I wrong? Obviously, I don't agree, as I noted above. Perhaps you call illegal behavior "idiocy", but then jurisprudence may be different in New Mexico.

Here, I think you'll likely disagree:

"Yet ACORN's troubles should be considered in the context of a history of honorable service to the dispossessed and impoverished. No doubt it was fun to dupe a few morons into providing tax advice to a 'pimp and ho,' but what ACORN actually does, every day, is help struggling families with the Earned Income Tax Credit (whose benefits were expanded by both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton). And while the idea of getting housing assistance for a brothel was clever, what ACORN really does, every day, is help those same working families avoid foreclosure and stay in their homes."

There are a number of largely factual assertions in the argument here -- are they false? Well, we get back to the idea that illegal behavior is not viewed a illegal when it happens to be "for a good cause that Democrats rationalize it as". Either it's a country of laws or it's not, David. If laws are selective, then allow me to select the ones that I think are good and allow me to ignore the laws I don't think should apply. But you don't really want everyone to pick and choose the laws they'll obey; what you really want is for people to do things the way you view them as correct. And "it's for a good cause", I'm sure.

A man holds up a liquor store. He works hard, usually, and he's been kind to his family and his neighbors. Therefore, the fact that he broke the law should not apply, right? A lot of people think like that, I'm well aware. I'm not arguing against that viewpoint... what I'm saying is let's set the rules and let everyone play equally. If it's to be "pick which laws we want to apply", I want to play, too.



The following, I think, sums up what a lot of people on the left would say, and I admit, sums up my impression too at least up until now:

"Over the past several years, a handful of ACORN employees have admitted falsifying names and signatures on registration cards, in order to boost the pay they received. When ACORN officials discovered those cases, they informed the state authorities and turned in the miscreants. ... The proportion of fraud is infinitesimal. For example, a half-dozen ACORN workers were charged with registration fraud or other election-related crimes in the 2004 election. They had completed fewer than two dozen false registrations -- out of more than a million new voters registered by ACORN during that cycle. The mythology that suggests that thousands or even millions of illegal registrants voted is itself a fraud.

***
To claim that the stupid behavior of a half-dozen employees should discredit a national group with offices in more than 75 cities staffed by many thousands of employees and volunteers is like saying that Mark Sanford or John Ensign have discredited every Republican governor or senator. ...

ACORN has pledged to institute reforms, with the appointment of a distinguished outside panel to oversee that process. ..."

(Edited to remove more blantant Conasonisms.)

Are the factual assertions contained in last quote, in your view, false?

Here's where I'm currently at in my thinking:

To talk meaningfully about ACORN the organization, not individual ACORN employees who should be sacked and, if they committed possible crimes, criminally investigated, I'd want either evidence leading up the chain of command or evidence that any corruption was systematic, not isolated. David, I only glanced through some of the data people are posting about ACORN and SEIU and SDS (these are all interrelated by personnel) and socialist organizations, but it seems like there is a huge amount of questionable facts and relationships. Granted, I didn't look beyond the obvious, but it would probably be something you'd say is indeed suggestive of an organization-wide problem. If you'd look. Or if the liberal media would report it.

What's most troubling to me is that the liberal media is actively attempting to quash facts by not reporting stories. And a lot of liberals are saying essentially that hiding stories, letting certain illegalities, etc., occur is OK because it serves some perceived common good to do a certain amount of unethical or illegal behavior. It's pretty squirrelly thinking, IMO, but really, all I'm saying is "let everyone play by the same rules of selective law enforcement".


It's really the same dynamic as the torture debate (sorry, I'm not trying to change the subject, just make a point); is it a "few bad apples," or must it originate at a higher level. It's the same basic question to be asked if, say 60 minutes took a hidden camera to Midas to prove the chain were a bunch of rip-off artists, for that matter. Good point. Where are liberals actively calling for an investigation into ACORN? "Same dynamic"? I doubt it.

You may have circumstantial evidence that points in the direction of organizational responsibility that I either haven't heard or have overlooked. I certainly accept you've done much more research on this issue than I. Can you point me towards it?
Hold on a sec and I'll try a few Google searches, although I'm not going to spend a lot of time doing something that, if you were really curious, you'd have done yourself.

Here, from the keyword search "corruption in ACORN" are a few of the results:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-vadum/2009/05/18/nyt-finally-admits-it-spiked-obama-acorn-corruption-story

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_587573.html

http://brainshavings.com/2008/10/acorn-obamas-corrupt-community-organizers.html

That last one seems to be some sort of compilation of issues that sounds more like what you're looking for, but I only skimmed it. Seems to be source-based, not just opinion.

I don't mind looking into allegations of CIA "torture", David. As I understand it, none of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" met the approved legal definition of "torture", so we need to be selective in the literal use of our terms. If there was legally defined "torture" done, then let's look into it. Similarly, if there were illegal acts committed organization-wide (or close enough) in ACORN, then let's call for an investigation. My personal suspicion is that most Democrats tolerate illegality when it's done by and for Democrats. I think some of that goes on with Republicans, too, but overall they're the party that worries more about ethical values, so they tend to be laughed at by Democrats for the "family values" stuff (I have some cynical thoughts about both sides, but I'll leave that alone as O/T).

But to quickly sum it up... it appears that your position is to trivialize any illegal acts by ACORN and you'd like them to escape scrutiny because they "do a lot of good"... is that correct? Wasn't that part of the Al Capone defense? ;)

Best.

Mike

[C. David Henderson]

A court decision I once quoted in a brief recounted a time when Justice Frankfurter attended a performance of the play "A Man for all Seasons." You may recall the play is about Sir Thomas Moore, who was executed for refusing to consent to the legitimacy of Henry VIII's disposal of his first wife in favor of Anne Bolen. Moore's son in law urges him to sacrifice legal principle for expedience, and Moore responds asking then once you have torn down all the laws of the land, and Satan turns on you, where will you find shelter.

At this point, Frankfurter leaned forward in his seat and exclaimed -- That's it; that's it.

That is it. If the evidence supports indictments and convictions so be it. Build your case; get the indictment; talk to the jury.

But the laws that define guilt delimit legal innocence. If you are a competent prosecutor you know you have to have evidence of criminal conspiracy, and then, at some threshold, criminal enterprise. You also know that criminal prosecutions ruin lives. You also know, but do your best not to flinch at the thought, of countless crimes of violence, not to mention similar instances of crass dishonesty, crying for attention on your desk.

Seriously, equating ACORN with Al Capone?

Then, to summarize, it's your position that no matter how much good an organization does, if you can prove a few idiots committed crimes you can dismiss the good based on some web sites you've not yourself bothered to digest?

If we've come to this, I'd say let's stop.

Best,
cdh

[Mike Sigman]

But the laws that define guilt delimit legal innocence. If you are a competent prosecutor you know you have to have evidence of criminal conspiracy, and then, at some threshold, criminal enterprise. You also know that criminal prosecutions ruin lives. You also know, but do your best not to flinch at the thought, of countless crimes of violence, not to mention similar instances of crass dishonesty, crying for attention on your desk. This from a person who is crying for investigations into the CIA/Bush-Admin for putative "torture"? ;)

David, in watching your discussions about ACORN, what's struck me the most is how you simply refuse to discuss some of the obvious elements like the many years of criminal and near-criminal behavior of ACORN. You avoid elements of discussions, IMO, that you don't want to concede and attempt to argue other facets. You're a lawyer. Perhaps a defense lawyer? Member of the TLA?

My background is engineering-related topics and physical sciences... I tend to approach a problem with the attitude that all factors in an equation should be considered. Certainly if there was an organization as corrupt and partisan as ACORN that worked almost exclusively in the interest of the Republicans, I would call for investigations and an end to it. I wouldn't be silly enough to ignore the partisan nature of such an organization and argue that what good it did was an excuse for decades of coercive pressure on banks, voter-registration fraud, and many other irregularities, including mixing accounts (without firewalls) so that U.S. taxpayer-money has been used for political (Democrat) campaign assistance.

That's the difference between the two of us. You see an argument as something to approach with strategy and attention mainly to factors that will make your case; I tend to look at a problem in terms of the whole picture.

As I've said a number of times.... let's don't talk about "laws" unless the idea of "laws" is applicable to everyone. If your judgement is that laws don't apply equally, then you invite other people to begin imposing their ideas of who or what the "law" is. Having been in places and situations where "law" is a tenuous idea, I'd comment that that's a beast you don't want to let out of the cage.

Seriously, equating ACORN with Al Capone? Absolutely. There are arguments being made to investigate ACORN under RICO (RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS) as we speak. They seem to meet the criteria. They are intertwined with a racketeer-related labor union, they're corrupt, and seem to fit nicely with a statute that would have been used for Capone's organization, if the statute had existed at the time of Capone. Remember, a lot of people in the Chicago area thought it was wrong for the feds to go after Capone.... he "did a lot good."


Then, to summarize, it's your position that no matter how much good an organization does, if you can prove a few idiots committed crimes you can dismiss the good based on some web sites you've not yourself bothered to digest?

If we've come to this, I'd say let's stop.
Well, now you've gone from implying there was only some limited minor "idiocy" to "a few idiots committed crimes". You simply would prefer to gloss-over decades of problems, illegal behavior, misallocation of public funds, partisan politics, etc., because you see the problem in terms of your politics. I see the problem as something I would attack on either side of the politics because if the law becomes a malleable trifle, chaos won't be far behind.

But, each to his own view. My position is simply that if the law becomes too diluted and partisan, then people will take the law into their own hands and I don't want that. You can't imagine such a thing happening in reality, I'll bet, so you of course have a different perspective.

Best.

Mike

[Mike Sigman]

Whoops... here's Obama (on ABC) a little while ago.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/09/obama-on-acorn-not-something-ive-followed-closely.html

So Obama, who has worked for ACORN as both a lawyer and a trainer and has extensive ties to ACORN (used them to register people to vote for him and he also paid them almost a million dollars) is only vaguely aware that there is something going on in the news about ACORN and didn't realize that ACORN also gets a lot of taxpayer money????? Only someone living in a fantasyland would buy a line like that from *any* president.

Of course, I guess the thousands who went off on the "Children's Crusades" believed just as firmly in their cause, so a case can be made that you can fool some of the people all the time, but usually it's only those that want to be fooled. ;)

Mike

[mathewjgano]

Of course, I guess the thousands who went off on the "Children's Crusades" believed just as firmly in their cause, so a case can be made that you can fool some of the people all the time, but usually it's only those that want to be fooled. ;)

Mike
That's faith for ya. They obviously don't want to be fooled, but questioning that which is perceived as sacred is a tough thing for most people...pretty much all people...except for me, I'm the exception that proves the rule.:p Who're you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?
Mike, would you say ACORN needs to be dismantled or just reformed?

[Mike Sigman]

Mike, would you say ACORN needs to be dismantled or just reformed?I dunno. We have a slight problem with some of the initial premises about what ACORN is supposed to do, I think. There was originally a lot of ACORN devoted to "equality" of opportunity, but it became too much of a "special rights" organization with an "anything goes because the underlying concept trumps law and ethics" organization. It boils down to either we equally enforce the laws or we have anarchy. ACORN is a political arm of the Democratic party and is the only organization in the United States that gets away with campaigning politically while at the same time receiving taxpayer money *and* contributions which are not taxed because they're "partially" a tax-exempt organization under a taxable umbrella shield. I.e., the law has been massively twisted by Democrats (who block all attempts to investigate) for ACORN. No Republican counterpart exists and none would be allowed to exist. I would certainly protest if the Republicans had some sort of bogus organization like this and had had it for 40 years.

My 2 cents.

Mike Sigman

[C. David Henderson]

What strikes me Mike is the extent to which you don't do what you say you do, and the extent to which you seem determined to win something here; often by completely misreading what I've said, ignoring what is inconvenient, attributing views to me that fit some phony image you've cobbled together in your own head without having ever met me or knowing my background--- none of which has much to do with the merits of anything and is personally disappointing.

For example, your stereotypes about lawyers and scientists seem just another convenient rhetorical device coming from someone who appears to advance his own position by discrediting other people even as he routinely denounces ad hominem attacks.

My summarization of your position in my last post, BTW, was meant to be unfair as well as the mirror image of your so-called summary. That's why I suggested we drop the discussion, because it seems to have devolved. Guess that went by you.

To me you seem unwilling to look at the other side of the equation here..

I worked my way through college as a cannery worker for seven seasons in a union shop in Oregon. I was, perforce, a member of the Teamsters. I had no illusions about that organization and wanted nothing to do with it.

My last summer there I fell into a machine and ripped a hole in my leg. I couldn't stop working or I'd have lost my job, so I went back the next evening. Compensating for my leg, soon I pulled a muscle in my back. I kept working. As the season wound down, management indicated they intended to put someone who'd been a foreman at another plant in my job driving forklift and have me do heavy labor, even though by seniority rules the driving job should have remained mine, and even though my back hadn't really healed.

So, I found myself talking to the Union. The people who helped me, as far as I could tell, were decent and caring and had never broken a law in their lives.

I endured the attempts of management to fire me, and quit with my seniority intact. The cannery closed that year and moved to Georgia, where they didn't have to worry about organized labor. (The site of the factory is now a campus for the University of Tokyo.)

I've suggested to you two things in this thread: (1) the vast majority of ACORN employees, etc., seem no more guilty of a crime than the local Teamster employees who helped me keep my job and preserve my health; and the good these people do matters when you start talking about ACORN just as the bad does.

It's not trivializing individual crimes in the least; it's just true, and if you only can hold half of that picture in your mind without reacting with anger it suggests something -- what I'm really not sure.

(2) If you want to go further and attribute the alleged crimes of individuals to the organization, you need facts. You seem not to care much about that.

I wholeheartedly advocate that the rule of law, and in particular, rules regarding accomplice liability, apply to allegations involving torture and prisoner abuse as much as to ACORN corruption. I said as much a few posts ago -- guess that was another inconvenient fact that doesn't fit with your stereotype or your aims.

I conclude there is no real chance of a constructive dialogue here. I really don't think you've treated me with respect or heard what I had to say. I decline to continue.

Stay well and take care.

cdh

[Mike Sigman]

Here is an editorial with actual quotes (i.e., actual facts), etc., mostly about the NEA at the top, but the whole column is germane, I think, to the question about ACORN (with mention of Conason, etc., at the bottomish):

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB10001424052970204488304574427111444082906.html

Mike Sigman

[Mike Sigman]

Good thing it wasn't Bush doing this tap-dance:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574427041636360388.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

Me, I'd be calling for Bush's head if he came even close to something like this. But then... I'm not someone who only goes after one side and pretends that I have keen insight into ethics. ;)

[Mike Sigman]

Ah well, if even Barney Frank jumps ship on ACORN, it's a bad sign. It's hard to be to the Left of Barney, but there are still some out there:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=48215

[Mike Sigman]

Harry Reid to block ACORN probe:

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/reid-blocks-acorn-probe-61438132.html

[dps]

From http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:z2DvcqRgyQgJ:www.capitalresearch.org,

U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Darrell Issa (CA-49), Ranking Member

Is ACORN Intentionally Structured As a Criminal Enterprise?

Staff Report
U.S. House of Representatives 111th Congress

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
July 20, 2009

I. Executive Summary

"We should be unfaithful to ourselves if we should ever lose sight of the danger to our liberties if anything
partial or extraneous should infect the purity of our free, fair, virtuous, and independent elections."
President John Adams, Inaugural Address, 1797

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) has repeatedly
and deliberately engaged in systemic fraud. Both structurally and operationally, ACORN
hides behind a paper wall of nonprofit corporate protections to conceal a criminal
conspiracy on the part of its directors, to launder federal money in order to pursue a
partisan political agenda and to manipulate the American electorate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


David

[dps]

From Alan Combs' website "Liberland"
http://www.alan.com/2009/09/23/how-the-anti-acorn-videos-grew-from-a-conservative-tree/

"How The Anti-Acorn Videos Grew From A Conservative Tree

James O'Keefe III and Hannah Giles, the videographers who exposed wrongdoing at ACORN, didn't just fall out of a tree one day. They each had training at Washington institutions that train ideological conservative journalists."

and

From The Washington Post
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/09/23/acorn_sues_okeefe_giles_and_br.html?wprss=44

ACORN Sues O'Keefe, Giles and Breitbart.com

ACORN's general counsel, Arthur Schwartz, said the acts of O'Keefe and Giles in making the hidden-camera taping were "clear violations of Maryland law."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Giles and O'Keefe may have had help in preparing themselves before doing the videos and they may have broken a Maryland law prohibiteing audio recording someone without their permission.
Does this this taint their actions and negate the information they gathered against ACORN?

David

[C. David Henderson]

No, it doesn't, and it struck me as a really dumb response for ACORN, especially since, as I understand it, they already canned the two employees who were punked. BTW, as the makers of the videos are private citizens, it's likely that any violation of law would not prohibit the use of the video as evidence in a court, unless the state statute specifically says otherwise (which I doubt).

I read today that ACORN lost its association with Bank of America; guess they need to start shilling for new sponsors along side Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck. This video has obviously hurt them badly; whether the organization can or will reform itself remains to be seen.

[MM]

ACORN May Face Trial for First Time as Nevada Prosecutors Allege 'Widespread' Criminal Policies

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,557461,00.html?test=latestnews


Until now, prosecutions for voter registration fraud have focused on ACORN workers, and authorities have secured guilty pleas from several who admitted to falsifying voter registration forms.

But when investigators from Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller's office raided the ACORN Las Vegas office, Ross says they found a paper trail that implicated the ACORN organization itself.

[Mike Sigman]

It's OK if corrupt behavior can be reconciled with "well they did some good for the side I believe in"?

http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/23/breaking-san-diego-acorn-document-dump-scandal/

[lbb]

And the pointless twaddle continues.

[MM]

And the pointless twaddle continues.

Have you read what happened? Pointless? These people dumped sensitive info into a public trash bin.

Are you saying it's pointless twaddle to dump people's social security numbers, tax returns, bank numbers into a public dumpster where anyone can take them?

Or pointless twaddle that Acorn committed another crime here?

Or pointless twaddle that Acorn could be sued by all those people who had information illegally dumped into a public trash bin?

Or pointless twaddle that "The group is now under investigation by a number of city, state and federal agencies, and Congress has cut off funding for the group"?

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,576466,00.html


After ACORN staff left for the day, he says, he searched the trash bin and discovered more than 20,000 documents he believes point to illicit relationships between ACORN and a bank and a labor union — as well as confidential information that could put thousands at risk for identity theft.

"We're talking people's driver's license numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, tax returns, credit reports" — all tossed in public view in the Dumpster, he said.

In one document shared with FoxNews.com, an ACORN employee's name, address, date of birth, Social Security number and driver's license number were revealed, and photocopies of the employee's license and Social Security card were also included. Another document showed bank account information for a woman paying an ACORN membership fee by check.

"It was just a careless disregard for the people that ACORN claimed to be helping," Roach told FoxNews.com. "They put these people at risk."

[Mike Sigman]

Are you saying it's pointless twaddle to dump people's social security numbers, tax returns, bank numbers into a public dumpster where anyone can take them? If Bush had done it, there would be howls to lynch him by the same people who say "Nothing here, folks... move along" about ACORN. Highlighting the hypocrisy is part of the fun. ;)

M

[lbb]

This is absolutely pointless. Time for some people to go on ignore.

[Stormcrow34]

Have you read what happened? Pointless? These people dumped sensitive info into a public trash bin.

Are you saying it's pointless twaddle to dump people's social security numbers, tax returns, bank numbers into a public dumpster where anyone can take them?

Or pointless twaddle that Acorn committed another crime here?

Or pointless twaddle that Acorn could be sued by all those people who had information illegally dumped into a public trash bin?

Or pointless twaddle that "The group is now under investigation by a number of city, state and federal agencies, and Congress has cut off funding for the group"?

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,576466,00.html

That's exactly what I was thinking. I don't really understand how anyone (on either side of the fence) can argue that this is not a huge story. :confused:

I'm not sure which is more disturbing; a government funded organization that appears to have no end to its corruption, or the fact that many people don't seem to care. I don't know what else to say, except there is something seriously wrong with the world when ideology takes precedence over integrity and humanity.

[James Davis]

That's exactly what I was thinking. I don't really understand how anyone (on either side of the fence) can argue that this is not a huge story. :confused:

I'm not sure which is more disturbing; a government funded organization that appears to have no end to its corruption, or the fact that many people don't seem to care. I don't know what else to say, except there is something seriously wrong with the world when ideology takes precedence over integrity and humanity.

Agreed!

[Aikibu]

And the pointless twaddle continues.

You forgot to insert the word "partisan" between pointless and twaddle Mary... LOL :)

Thomas Frank's book,,,"The Wrecking Crew" has a pretty good take on Republican Efforts to destroy any attempts at getting the poor and disenfranchised to vote... including trying to discredit organizations like ACORN...

To suggest there is some vast conspiracy at work has been a Republican staple since Nixon got caught at Watergate

Debating the issues here with some folks is like talking to a dead fish...Nothing will ever come of it, and after a few days both you and the fish stink.

William Hazen

[Mike Sigman]

You forgot to insert the word "partisan" between pointless and twaddle Mary... LOL :)

Thomas Frank's book,,,"The Wrecking Crew" has a pretty good take on Republican Efforts to destroy any attempts at getting the poor and disenfranchised to vote... including trying to discredit organizations like ACORN...

To suggest there is some vast conspiracy at work has been a Republican staple since Nixon got caught at Watergate

Debating the issues here with some folks is like talking to a dead fish...Nothing will ever come of it, and after a few days both you and the fish stink.

William Hazen

Whoops.... you forgot to write "Namaste" at the bottom of all those nasty partisan insinuations that, once again, don't seem to want to admit that ACORN did anything wrong. Tsk. If you want to start a thread on conspiracies, let's take a look at the current debacle on the global-warming guys who have conpirstorially been rigging the data, peer review literature, etc., for years and just got caught for sure (people have known for years they were rigging the data but couldn't prove it; they can now). Of course, like ACORN these AGW guys were doing it for all the right reasons (that's how they justified it among themselves) so a little crookedness doesn't matter and anyone who points out the illegal acts is someone to be attacked, right? Like in the above post?

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Mike

[Aikibu]

Whoops.... you forgot to write "Namaste" at the bottom of all those nasty partisan insinuations that, once again, don't seem to want to admit that ACORN did anything wrong. Tsk. If you want to start a thread on conspiracies, let's take a look at the current debacle on the global-warming guys who have conpirstorially been rigging the data, peer review literature, etc., for years and just got caught for sure (people have known for years they were rigging the data but couldn't prove it; they can now). Of course, like ACORN these AGW guys were doing it for all the right reasons (that's how they justified it among themselves) so a little crookedness doesn't matter and anyone who points out the illegal acts is someone to be attacked, right? Like in the above post?

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Mike

Yaaawn....I keep trying to give you back your goat Mike but obviously you would rather assume that everything I post is directed at you rather the group...I have no qualms addressing you directly... however as the saying goes....

If the shoe fits...

Now where in my post did I mention that ACORN was as white as snow? However it is a partisan organization in that it most poor and
disenfranchised folks register as Democrats and I don't know where you've been the last 20 years but what would you consider such groups as "Focus on the Family" "TBN" and other Christian Evangelical "Groups"??? Republican "FAN" clubs Ha Ha Ha...

How do you think Bush won in 2004??? I don't know about where you live but there were a number of "churches" that pushed voter registration pretty damn hard and advocated for Bush from the pulpit...Still... Bush only won by a hair and considered his win a "mandate for change."

And don't get me started about 504c's....

Namaste' Mr Sensitive. :)

Seriously...:)

William Hazen

[Mike Sigman]

Now where in my post did I mention that ACORN was as white as snow? Er... isn't that a pretty wild comment, seeing as how you didn't mention ACORN, but did an essentially negative post about people unrelated to ACORN?
However it is a partisan organization in that it most poor and
disenfranchised folks register as Democrats and I don't know where you've been the last 20 years but what would you consider such groups as "Focus on the Family" "TBN" and other Christian Evangelical "Groups"??? Republican "FAN" clubs Ha Ha Ha...
Hmmmm. I don't care for any of those other groups, either, but if they'd been caught breaking the law repeatedly I'd sure as heck be calling for an end to them. However, why try to divert the topic with the "other people are bad" argument, which doesn't even qualify for Debate 101?

How do you think Bush won in 2004??? You guys couldn't talk if you couldn't blame Bush for everything, could you? I assure you that if Bush had used ACORN to get fraudulent votes you'd want to hang Bush and get rid of ACORN and I would too. Except I don't play sides when it comes to recognizing bad or illegal behavior.
I don't know about where you live but there were a number of "churches" that pushed voter registration pretty damn hard and advocated for Bush from the pulpit...Still... Bush only won by a hair and considered his win a "mandate for change." This is nonsense. What does your 'hate Bush' rhetoric have to do with ACORN? That's two "hate somebody" posts. That's why I like to read Aikido and Taiji forums. ;)

Oh.... and you still haven't said anything negative about ACORN.... it's still "all those other guys are bad". The normal pattern.

If you want to defend ACORN, why not do it without trying to drag other people down?

Mike Sigman

[Marc Abrams]

What did the acorn say to the squirrel? EAT ME!

On one side we have the "right" and on the other side we have the "left." The right, typically backing the Republiscum party and the left, typically backing the Democrap party.

In lieu of addressing REAL problems in this country, they seem to want us to focus on issues that are self-serving to one side. Instead of finding ways to try and unite this country, they seek to divide us through truly inconsequential issues.

Both parties are corrupt to the very core. Each of them have irreparably prostituted themselves out to some larger entities (typically big business). Each party has it's support groups that engage in anything less than honest business. Each party is more interested in enriching their coffers than they are in dealing honestly with the American people. Each party is more interested in sticking together rather than working across the aisle to come to some real, non-corrupted solutions to real problems. Each party is more interested in tearing down the other side rather than building consensus. While this is going on, the special interests (typically big businesses) are proverbially raping us, even at our expense!

Let me help some of you out:

1) ACORN= politically corrupt group that did some valid good work as well.

2) Climate Change Scientists. Some did the same thing that scientists did who were paid by certain businesses to do. Play with data.

3) Bush Administration allowed big energy companies to essentially write a self-serving energy bill, hidden through meetings with the Big Dick (aka Cheney). Guess what, the finance industry has been doing that with the Obama administration (Bush administration as well). Political business as usual-> CORRUPT!

3) Bottom Line: BIG F"ING DEAL. Can We All Move On Now? Can we seriously address some more pressing issues:
1) Military overstretched.
2) Deficit overstretched.
3) Not enough new jobs being created.
4) Homeless and Hungry who up until recently had jobs and houses.
5) Crumbling infrastructures.
6) Failures of regulatory agencies across the board
etc, etc, etc.......

If people need to continue to "argue" over the importance of ACORN's misdeeds or whether or not the Bush administration broke national and international laws, or which side's scientists played with data on the "global warming debate", then by all means continue to waste your time and breath. The cries of "hypocrisy" on both sides is simply the whining over spilled milk. William Hazen was spot on when he described these topics of debate as dealing with dead fish.

Marc Abrams

[Aikibu]

Er... isn't that a pretty wild comment, seeing as how you didn't mention ACORN, but did an essentially negative post about people unrelated to ACORN? Hmmmm. I don't care for any of those other groups, either, but if they'd been caught breaking the law repeatedly I'd sure as heck be calling for an end to them. However, why try to divert the topic with the "other people are bad" argument, which doesn't even qualify for Debate 101? You guys couldn't talk if you couldn't blame Bush for everything, could you? I assure you that if Bush had used ACORN to get fraudulent votes you'd want to hang Bush and get rid of ACORN and I would too. Except I don't play sides when it comes to recognizing bad or illegal behavior. This is nonsense. What does your 'hate Bush' rhetoric have to do with ACORN? That's two "hate somebody" posts. That's why I like to read Aikido and Taiji forums. ;)

Oh.... and you still haven't said anything negative about ACORN.... it's still "all those other guys are bad". The normal pattern.

If you want to defend ACORN, why not do it without trying to drag other people down?

Mike Sigman

Your right I did not mention ACORN...I assumed that since ACORN was the topic of the thread folks were smart enough to know what I was talking about...I hope I can make that same assumption with you. :)

My first post had nothing to do with defending ACORN... Right again Mike. I had to do with my agreement with another poster about how some folks here twaddle on about nothing in order to "defend" their partisan point of view...

As for "dragging other people down" Again I am sorry you're so insecure with regard to your political beliefs...Personally I don't have the same problem...There is no debate here...It's just your dissatisfaction with the fact Obama is President and you did not
vote for him.

I did vote for him as did a huge majority of folks...So many folks in fact (as opposed to the number who voted Bush in Office in 2000 and 2004) That voter fraud would be statistically impossible as a factor in electing him...ACORN included...

Independent Voters gave Obama the Largest Presidential Election Margin of Victory in a Generation...Not ACORN Democrats...

In fact BOTH PARTIES cannot elect anyone into office without winning Independent Voters to their "side"

So this "dissatisfaction" has manifested itself in a ton of partisan political topics all aimed at showing the "illegitimacy" of the other side...

Feel free to go ahead an twaddle on my friend...I have become fond of having your goat and I will continue to take care of it until you decide to have it back. :)

Namaste" Mike :)

Seriously. :)

William Hazen

[Mike Sigman]

Your right I did not mention ACORN...I assumed that since ACORN was the topic of the thread folks were smart enough to know what I was talking about...I hope I can make that same assumption with you. :)

My first post had nothing to do with defending ACORN... Right again Mike. I had to do with my agreement with another poster about how some folks here twaddle on about nothing in order to "defend" their partisan point of view...

As for "dragging other people down" Again I am sorry you're so insecure with regard to your political beliefs...Personally I don't have the same problem...There is no debate here...It's just your dissatisfaction with the fact Obama is President and you did not
vote for him.

I did vote for him as did a huge majority of folks...So many folks in fact (as opposed to the number who voted Bush in Office in 2000 and 2004) That voter fraud would be statistically impossible as a factor in electing him...ACORN included...

Independent Voters gave Obama the Largest Presidential Election Margin of Victory in a Generation...Not ACORN Democrats...

In fact BOTH PARTIES cannot elect anyone into office without winning Independent Voters to their "side"

So this "dissatisfaction" has manifested itself in a ton of partisan political topics all aimed at showing the "illegitimacy" of the other side...

Feel free to go ahead an twaddle on my friend...I have become fond of having your goat and I will continue to take care of it until you decide to have it back. :)

Namaste" Mike :)

Seriously. :)

William Hazen So still no comment on ACORN doing anything wrong, but some more partisan comments. No one but you has brought up the past election but you. The subject was the illegal acts of ACORN, which, BTW, along with the SEIU, had a *lot* to do with the election of Obama.

Now about the illegal acts of ACORN.......? You don't really care, do you?

Mike

[dps]

3) Bottom Line: BIG F"ING DEAL. Can We All Move On Now?

Yes, yes lets forget all about it and move on.
These are only the people that are suppose to be providing justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, general welfare, liberty and prosperity for us.
So what that they are not.
So what that they are taking these away from us.
No big F"ING deal.
Lets ignore it, there is nothing you can do about it so just shut up and let them screw you.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana

David

[Marc Abrams]

Yes, yes lets forget all about it and move on.
These are only the people that are suppose to be providing justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, general welfare, liberty and prosperity for us.
So what that they are not.
So what that they are taking these away from us.
No big F"ING deal.
Lets ignore it, there is nothing you can do about it so just shut up and let them screw you.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana

David

David:

I NEVER said let us ignore it when our rights are being taken away from us. Were you outraged and outspoken when some of your fellow citizens had their civil liberties & rights taken away from them during the last administration? No administration should be allowed to engage in this without civil protest. ACORN and scientists who manipulated data regarding climate warming have NOTHING to do with what you wrote above.

Focusing on irrelevant issues has little to do with ending corruption in government, which far surpasses anything our government (recent past and present) has done to take away some of our rights and liberties. I am not asking people to be silent, but to raise their voices in areas that actually impact us in profound ways.

Marc Abrams

[Rob Watson]

Who was it that said we should just shoot them all every 20 years and start over? Founding father indeed.

[David Orange]

What did the acorn say to the squirrel? EAT ME!

In lieu of addressing REAL problems in this country, they seem to want us to focus on issues that are self-serving to one side. Instead of finding ways to try and unite this country, they seek to divide us through truly inconsequential issues.

True, it is.

However, I think we simply need to prioritize and deal with the crimes in order of 1) size and relevance; and 2) first committed, first convicted.

The ACORN thing is rotten enough, but our modern day Himmlers are just using it as a smoke screen to cover the getaway of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld et al.

If we're not going to condemn and convict Bush and Co., then yes, we should just let 'em all go and move on.

But for anyone to give Bush a pass and try to turn everyone's attention to the small potatoes ACORN bunch shows true lack of character and contempt for the citizens and taxpayers of this country.

I say bring them ALL to justice in the order in which they committed their crimes and in direct proportion to the size of their crimes, which means FIRST BUSH, then, without fail, all the rest.

Best to you.

David

[David Orange]

So still no comment on ACORN doing anything wrong, but some more partisan comments. No one but you has brought up the past election but you. The subject was the illegal acts of ACORN, which, BTW, along with the SEIU, had a *lot* to do with the election of Obama.

Now about the illegal acts of ACORN.......? You don't really care, do you?

Mike

The illegal acts of ACORN need to be punished severely.

But the crimes of the Bush administration are thousands of times worse. So what must be done with them?

David

[Mike Sigman]

The illegal acts of ACORN need to be punished severely.

But the crimes of the Bush administration are thousands of times worse. So what must be done with them?
If the Bush admin committed actionable illegal acts (and not just the rantings of political lunatics) then take them to trial. Period. And start a separate thread instead of trying to bring all the separate comparisons into the ACORN thread.

FWIW

Mike Sigman

[David Orange]

If the Bush admin committed actionable illegal acts (and not just the rantings of political lunatics) then take them to trial. Period.

But you know it will never happen. And you know that ACORN is nothing but a ruse to draw people's attention from the well established international war crimes of the bush administration.

You know that pointing fingers at ACORN's actions is like drawing attention to a speeder to take the heat off a rapist.

It's pretty damned sad and low.

David

[David Orange]

...start a separate thread instead of trying to bring all the separate comparisons into the ACORN thread.

It's not "comparisons". The proper term is "context" and that does belong in the ACORN thread.

[Mike Sigman]

Who was it that said we should just shoot them all every 20 years and start over? Founding father indeed.
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."

Thomas Jefferson

[David Orange]

"... If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance?...

Sadly, when the election of 2000 was jiggered by Jeb Bush, we failed to do as much as the Iranians did when their election was stolen.

But the election of 2008 showed the real will of the people and at least rebuked the criminals of the past eight years.

But sadly again, now that we have a truly elected leader, now the insulted partisans cry for blood.

[dps]

The illegal acts of ACORN need to be punished severely.

And all the politicians associated with them?

David

[Aikibu]

So still no comment on ACORN doing anything wrong, but some more partisan comments. No one but you has brought up the past election but you. The subject was the illegal acts of ACORN, which, BTW, along with the SEIU, had a *lot* to do with the election of Obama.

Now about the illegal acts of ACORN.......? You don't really care, do you?

Mike

Yes that's right I admit it... A Nefarious Cabal of the Poor... Minorities.. Janitors and Hotel Maids secretly stole the Presidential Election from John McCain, Sarah Palin, and "Real" Americans :D

Illegal Acts should be punished thats pretty simple enough...Where did I say they shouldn't or that I don't "really care"?

Of course I care... but please don't let what I actually said get in the way of your fantasies Mike. :)

Namaste'

Seriously. :)

William Hazen

[C. David Henderson]

And all the politicians associated with them?

David

David,

I'm certain you didn't intend to suggest they would "all" be guilty by "association," and you would demand proof of culpable conduct before they were "punished" too.

Nonetheless, I wonder whether you've hit upon the political reason ACORN makes such an attractive topic for those on the opposite end of the ideological spectrum.

By that measure, we'd have to resort to Jefferson's rhetorical 20-year solution, which is unacceptable on too many grounds to count.

YMMV.

Respectfully,

cdh

[David Orange]

...we'd have to resort to Jefferson's rhetorical 20-year solution, which is unacceptable on too many grounds to count.

Not to mention, Impossible.

No US citizen is going to go against the US government and military and come out ahead anymore.

What's far more likely is a bunch of tea baggers picking off the "lefties" wherever they can, which is why protests in Florida in 2000 didn't go any further than they did. The protesters had their signs and their reason. The wing nuts had guns and were one hair trigger away from using them.

David

[Mike Sigman]

Not to mention, Impossible.

No US citizen is going to go against the US government and military and come out ahead anymore.

What's far more likely is a bunch of tea baggers picking off the "lefties" wherever they can, which is why protests in Florida in 2000 didn't go any further than they did. The protesters had their signs and their reason. The wing nuts had guns and were one hair trigger away from using them.
Well, it sounds like you're one of the guys who will continue to use all the name-calling possible to see if you can't at least provoke people, David. I think the fact that there are even Tea Parties (which are nothing like the destructive and often vicious demonstrations by the Left) by people who normally say little or nothing is probably a sign that is worrisome to the Left, which has been spitting on the U.S. military for years, blocking their ability to absentee vote, shrugging off military deaths that are a result of partisan press coverage, etc. It should be interesting to watch it develop... and it's certainly a lot more of a possibility than at anytime previously in my life. Good luck with your continued provocation and name-calling.

I think this thread has probably reached the end of its run.

FWIW

Mike Sigman

[Aikibu]

Well, it sounds like you're one of the guys who will continue to use all the name-calling possible to see if you can't at least provoke people, David. I think the fact that there are even Tea Parties (which are nothing like the destructive and often vicious demonstrations by the Left) by people who normally say little or nothing is probably a sign that is worrisome to the Left, which has been spitting on the U.S. military for years, blocking their ability to absentee vote, shrugging off military deaths that are a result of partisan press coverage, etc. It should be interesting to watch it develop... and it's certainly a lot more of a possibility than at anytime previously in my life. Good luck with your continued provocation and name-calling.

I think this thread has probably reached the end of its run.

FWIW

Mike Sigman

Thanks for exposing your true political self...I thought those Obama Hitler Signs,Swastika's, and other fear mongering placards were just leftist stooges planted at Tea Party rallies to make Real White Americans look bad.

Those pesky Poor People and Janitors are every where. :D

Namaste'

Seriously. :D

William Hazen

[C. David Henderson]

Moose said to Squirrel, "Rocky, I'm afraid that was no mere Acorn, it was a whole wedge issue you just swallowed. Bound to cause gas:"

Last week, third-party candidate and eventual Republican favorite Doug Hoffman announced that he was retracting the concession he'd made on election night. ....ACORN had stolen the special Congressional election and thus New York's 23rd district from him, Hoffman said.

But as absentee ballots were tallied, it quickly became clear that Hoffman had no shot at victory in the initial count, and probably couldn't win a challenge, either. So on Tuesday he conceded one last time.http://salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2009/11/24/hoffman/index.html