PDA

View Full Version : ACORN workers caught on tape apparently advising on child prostitution


Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

Frank
09-18-2009, 09:33 PM
For those who think the tapes have somehow been "doctored", I offer the following information.
OK, given your information, can you suggest why O'Keefe is not willing to release the full original and unedited tapes?

MOIDALIZE
09-18-2009, 10:18 PM
OK, given your information, can you suggest why O'Keefe is not willing to release the full original and unedited tapes?

Actually, I think he should suggest why we should all care about this first.

Evil One
09-18-2009, 10:56 PM
OK, given your information, can you suggest why O'Keefe is not willing to release the full original and unedited tapes?

I haven't heard whether he has been asked. Has that request been made?

If I were in his shoes, I would be reluctant to give away the original tapes to anyone either. How could I be assured I would get them back? Who would I give them to? How could I be assured that the person or entity I gave them to is unbiased? How would they analyze them?

In this hyperpolitical atmosphere, anything he does is going to be questioned. Just like Bush or Obama, there is nothing he can do that will satisfy a certain percentage of people.

Evil One
09-18-2009, 11:10 PM
I don't know of any evidence that the tapes were doctored. But regarding the point quoted above, couldn't they just paste on a timecode after the editing?

The only purpose for a visible time code on the tape in the first place is to counter editing accusations. And no, there really is no way to paste another timecode over the original panel. It's not like photoshop on a .jpg. The timecode is embedded in the video control track. I suppose you could have a video of a running timecode that looked exactly the same and run through an after-affects program to shrink it to the exact size of the original timecode display. If you take that and mix it together with the original tape onto another tape, it might work.

But if you have the original tape to prove the events were shot as you say they were, you wouldn't need to bother.


I think the idea is supposed to be that they just added in sound. You can't see Giles and O'Keefe's mouths for most of the clip, so it wouldn't be hard to just dub in dialogue for them, would it?

If you dub in dialogue, you would have to somehow manufacture the exact ambient noise picked up inside the ACORN office as background noise. An analysis of that tape would then reveal two separate audio tracks on the control track.

Evil One
09-18-2009, 11:14 PM
Actually, I think he should suggest why we should all care about this first.

You'd be singing a different tune if someone with leftward ideology had a similar tape shot in a gun show or NRA meeting and they were talking about buying illegal guns.

Or an anti-abortion group talking about burning down a clinic.

The ACORN people were condoning crime and seemed quite happy to do it.

MOIDALIZE
09-18-2009, 11:18 PM
You'd be singing a different tune if someone with leftward ideology had a similar tape shot in a gun show or NRA meeting and they were talking about buying illegal guns.

Or an anti-abortion group talking about burning down a clinic.

The ACORN people were condoning crime and seemed quite happy to do it.


I would? That's news to me.

I'm sure I'd try to tie their actions to Bush as well, wouldn't I?

At some point, you're going to have to drop this "opposing teams" concept of politics and government and start to decide on what truly matters and what doesn't.

Frylock
09-18-2009, 11:24 PM
The only purpose for a visible time code on the tape in the first place is to counter editing accusations. And no, there really is no way to paste another timecode over the original panel. It's not like photoshop on a .jpg. The timecode is embedded in the video control track. I suppose you could have a video of a running timecode that looked exactly the same and run through an after-affects program to shrink it to the exact size of the original timecode display. If you take that and mix it together with the original tape onto another tape, it might work.

Yes, that sounds like it might work.

But if you have the original tape to prove the events were shot as you say they were, you wouldn't need to bother.

True enough. But of course the people who are saying it's dubbed wouldn't agree that the pair have an original tape like the one you describ.



If you dub in dialogue, you would have to somehow manufacture the exact ambient noise picked up inside the ACORN office as background noise. An analysis of that tape would then reveal two separate audio tracks on the control track.

I don't understand this, probably because I don't know anything about audio recording. Why couldn't you just record manufactured dialogue, and fairly literally add it to the tape, adding it in over the ambient noise and so on?

Snowboarder Bo
09-19-2009, 12:14 AM
Yes, that sounds like it might work.



True enough. But of course the people who are saying it's dubbed wouldn't agree that the pair have an original tape like the one you describ.





I don't understand this, probably because I don't know anything about audio recording. Why couldn't you just record manufactured dialogue, and fairly literally add it to the tape, adding it in over the ambient noise and so on?

It wouldn't sound the same without lots and lots of processing, and the processing would be obvious to anyone who knows how to do it. Hollywood studios pay tens of thousands of dollars to people who do this for a living when dialogue has to be re-recorded in post and then dubbed into the scene. It takes a lot of equipment, a lot of technical & artistic expertise, and even then is fairly obvious to people who know audio.

elucidator
09-19-2009, 12:31 AM
I think Sen Vitter (R-NookieMonster) is just the man to head up an investigation into this prostitution angle, can't think of anybody better qualified...

Diogenes the Cynic
09-19-2009, 12:34 AM
I think Sen Vitter (R-NookieMonster) is just the man to head up an investigation into this prostitution angle, can't think of anybody better qualified...
Depends....

elucidator
09-19-2009, 01:04 AM
On that issue, it would have to be Sen McCain....(fudda-bump ting!)..thank you, thank you, here all week, try your waitress, tip the veal....

cosmosdan
09-19-2009, 03:46 AM
I would? That's news to me.

I'm sure I'd try to tie their actions to Bush as well, wouldn't I?

At some point, you're going to have to drop this "opposing teams" concept of politics and government and start to decide on what truly matters and what doesn't.

I think there;s something fishy about these tapes but, I loved Bowling for Columbine when I first saw it. Then I discovered how it had been edited to give false impressions and I was pissed. I haven't seen or examined his later movies but Moore is the lefty guy who likes to use creative edits to spin what's called a documentary into his own vision. IMHO.

cosmosdan
09-19-2009, 03:51 AM
For those who think the tapes have somehow been "doctored", I offer the following information.

First, O'Keefe was smart enough to put a visible timecode at the top left of the tapes. That's 30 frames per second visibly ticking by one frame at a time. If the individual portions shown on youtube and FOX were edited to somehow insert or remove individual shots within the video clips shown, it would appear in the timecode which would then be out of sequence. Since it runs from start to finish from the beginning of the clip to the end, no video editing has taken place.

Second, you can watch the lips of the people speaking and see that no audio overdubbing has taken place. With a non-linear editing system, it would be possible to eliminate all audio from the video and replace it...but you cannot edit ambient sound and the spoken words separately without recording them on separate audio channels to begin with. Since the audio from the ACORN workers is heard along with the ambient sound and the speaking voices of Giles and O'Keefe, that means one mic was used...the one attached to the hidden camera. If all the audio is recorded on one mic, it can't be separated in post-production. It's all mixed together at the recording source.

Some people have asserted that the ACORN workers were answering harmless questions and that the "child prostitution" language was somehow "dubbed in later". With a visible time code and one audio source, the only way for this to happen would be to somehow record the ambient sound without anyone talking. Then they would have to lay it down as a base track (at exactly the same audio level as the original, with perfect timing about what was going on in the background so it would sound the same) and then carefully substitute in the alternate dialogue...making sure that the timing is correct as far as the number of seconds it would take to speak both the "real" and "fake" questions. The timing would have to be the same to avoid either too much silence at both ends of the edit or stepping on the original audio at the beginning or the end. Oh, and make sure the audio levels of both sets of dialogue is exactly the same.

This procedure would have to be repeated for each instance of "overdubbing". Even the one and two word answers.

I'm thinking more along the lines that they knew he was playing and they were playing along. The missing parts could be the parts that indicate that so that what is chosen , taken out of context, looks much worse than it is.

Snowboarder Bo
09-19-2009, 05:55 AM
I'm thinking more along the lines that they knew he was playing and they were playing along. The missing parts could be the parts that indicate that so that what is chosen , taken out of context, looks much worse than it is.

Which, if true, would mean he could be found guilty of slander, as well as having violated wiretap/illegal taping laws.

Evil One
09-19-2009, 12:57 PM
I'm thinking more along the lines that they knew he was playing and they were playing along.

The detailed amount of enthsiastic planning and advice that I saw is a bit more than "playing along".

elucidator
09-19-2009, 01:07 PM
Then you must have seen a much more extensive version that the rest of us did, seeing as how you saw "detailed" planning and advice. Either that, or you saw what you expected to see, and let it go at that. Not that that is wrong, or malicious, simply human. But one must be as vigilant about lying to oneself as others lying to you, don't you think?

Evil One
09-19-2009, 01:31 PM
Then you must have seen a much more extensive version that the rest of us did, seeing as how you saw "detailed" planning and advice. Either that, or you saw what you expected to see, and let it go at that. Not that that is wrong, or malicious, simply human. But one must be as vigilant about lying to oneself as others lying to you, don't you think?

Did you see the San Bernadino tape with the woman excitedly talking about "what you can do" and saying "Oh, ok" when they first bring up the child prostitutes?

This whole thing is pretty much indefensible from the ACORN point of view. I realize some of it may be reflexive, but it might be time to consider admitting that they are in the wrong.

cosmosdan
09-19-2009, 01:50 PM
The detailed amount of enthsiastic planning and advice that I saw is a bit more than "playing along".

So playing along can't be enthusiastic? I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion.

The fact is we don't have enough information to know with any degree of certainty. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to find some corruption and stupidity in any large organization. That's how humanity breaks down. The number of different offices that at least appear guilty does surprise me.
The fact that evidence indicates at least one lady knew it was a gag and played along makes me wonder about the rest. The fact that OKeefe has not released the tapes makes me very skeptical. He took them to a channel that is noted for editing video clips to suit their agenda and they have not released the full tapes either.

The media may love to inflate the controversy and knee jerk politicians may react for the sake of show but until we have more evidence I'm in the innocent until proven guilty camp. There's plenty of reasonable doubt for me.

cosmosdan
09-19-2009, 01:53 PM
Did you see the San Bernadino tape with the woman excitedly talking about "what you can do" and saying "Oh, ok" when they first bring up the child prostitutes?

This whole thing is pretty much indefensible from the ACORN point of view. I realize some of it may be reflexive, but it might be time to consider admitting that they are in the wrong.

The individuals rather than organization as a whole, are in the wrong if the evidence is sufficient to prove they did what they are being accused of doing.

So far it isn't.

cosmosdan
09-19-2009, 01:59 PM
Which, if true, would mean he could be found guilty of slander, as well as having violated wiretap/illegal taping laws.

It's certainly possible that some of many offices had people with incredibly bad judgment. I still find it very hard to believe that women would seriously offer advice to some pimp to help them prostitute under age girls. Of course the bizarre is possible given the numbers but I want the evidence. An edited tape doesn't qualify.

gonzomax
09-19-2009, 02:09 PM
One of the workers said she killed her ex-husband. That, of course was investigated. All her exes are healthy and alive. She went along with the obvious stupid game they were playing and had fun with it. People wonder how they could believe these white kids . Well, they didn't. They just played with them. This is a trumped of pile of B.S. It reveals nothing about ACORN.

Diogenes the Cynic
09-19-2009, 02:11 PM
Did you see the San Bernadino tape with the woman excitedly talking about "what you can do" and saying "Oh, ok" when they first bring up the child prostitutes?

This whole thing is pretty much indefensible from the ACORN point of view. I realize some of it may be reflexive, but it might be time to consider admitting that they are in the wrong.
That's the same woman who whooshed them with the story about killing her husband, so I think it's pretty obvious that she was dicking with them.

wolf11469
09-19-2009, 03:16 PM
One of the workers said she killed her ex-husband. That, of course was investigated. All her exes are healthy and alive. She went along with the obvious stupid game they were playing and had fun with it. People wonder how they could believe these white kids . Well, they didn't. They just played with them. This is a trumped of pile of B.S. It reveals nothing about ACORN.

Does the fact that she was lying about killing her husband mean she had to be onto them? Is it remotely possible she was just talking shit to make herself sound tough? I've had guys tell me a story that was mildly amusing then 5 years later tell me a wildly exaggerated version of the same story .... its somewhat human nature to embelish

cosmosdan
09-19-2009, 03:34 PM
Does the fact that she was lying about killing her husband mean she had to be onto them? Is it remotely possible she was just talking shit to make herself sound tough? I've had guys tell me a story that was mildly amusing then 5 years later tell me a wildly exaggerated version of the same story .... its somewhat human nature to embelish

The woman said she knew they were faking and was playing along. The story of killing her ex was part of that playing. That seems more likely to me than she took them seriously and then just threw in that lie to seem tough.

Remotely possible? I suppose. Are we going to condemn ACORN over that?

Merijeek
09-19-2009, 03:48 PM
Does the fact that she was lying about killing her husband mean she had to be onto them? Is it remotely possible she was just talking shit to make herself sound tough? I've had guys tell me a story that was mildly amusing then 5 years later tell me a wildly exaggerated version of the same story .... its somewhat human nature to embelish

So she only killed them a little bit, but years later the story she told was that she killed them, like all the way? Makes perfect sense!

-Joe

elucidator
09-19-2009, 04:04 PM
Question: this is a toss-up question, two points, either team can buzz in with the answer...

Which news related shows has this O'Keefe fellow been on? I saw some of him on a Fox Gnaws commentary roundtable, where softball questions were gently lobbed. Has he been on any shows where a less laudatory approach might have been used? I'd like to take a quick gander, for comparison sake if nothing else.

wolf11469
09-19-2009, 04:13 PM
The woman said she knew they were faking and was playing along. The story of killing her ex was part of that playing. That seems more likely to me than she took them seriously and then just threw in that lie to seem tough.

Remotely possible? I suppose. Are we going to condemn ACORN over that?

I have neither condoned nor condemned Acorn nor do I think it necessarily means the entire organization is corrupt ... I'm sure the do a great deal of good work for the community. At the same time tho It wouldn't surprise me if this women would say whatever it takes to save her job.

wolf11469
09-19-2009, 04:19 PM
So she only killed them a little bit, but years later the story she told was that she killed them, like all the way? Makes perfect sense!

-Joe

Well, this site http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=15294 has a link to a document they claim is a restraing order filed by one of her husbands.

http://170.164.31.10/openaccess/CIVIL/CivilDetails.asp?courtcode=X&casenumber=BS800189&casetype=FAM&dsn=

so maybe she pulled a gun on the husband and the story grew??

gonzomax
09-19-2009, 04:37 PM
Have you seen what they looked like/ Who could take them seriously? A white kid with a fur coat and a pimp cane playing dress up. It was a joke to everyone but Fox.

elucidator
09-19-2009, 04:42 PM
My first visceral impression of her was that she was recovering from being a deranged, drug-addled skank to deranged skank. That's a wholly subjective impression, I don't pretend it has any more weight than that. I just don't like her "vibes".

See, ACORN is driven by the liberal ideology of compassion and change. They sincerely believe that poor people are inherently more virtuous. This is nonsense, of course, one of the biggest reasons to fight against poverty is because it corrupts and degrades its victims.

But ACORN believes in people, they believe in second chances, they hire people nobody else will touch. That makes them vulnerable to grifters, losers, and system-gamers. Is that naive stupidity, or moral courage?

Your call.

cosmosdan
09-19-2009, 04:42 PM
I have neither condoned nor condemned Acorn nor do I think it necessarily means the entire organization is corrupt ... I'm sure the do a great deal of good work for the community. At the same time tho It wouldn't surprise me if this women would say whatever it takes to save her job.

This thread is about whether ACORN workers, and/or ACORN are guilty of anything. It's looking pretty questionable.

What you seem to be saying is what I've said. WE don't have enough evidence to really know.

Would it surprise you if OKeefe clipped the videos and presented them dishonestly in order to get attention and or money? Is there more reason to believe something negative about the ACORN workers than there is him?

wolf11469
09-19-2009, 05:18 PM
This thread is about whether ACORN workers, and/or ACORN are guilty of anything. It's looking pretty questionable.

What you seem to be saying is what I've said. WE don't have enough evidence to really know.

Would it surprise you if OKeefe clipped the videos and presented them dishonestly in order to get attention and or money? Is there more reason to believe something negative about the ACORN workers than there is him?

It wouldn't surprise me in the least, nor would it surprise me if he had been "shown the door" on multiple scam attempts. I know O'keffe has a agenda, but it does surprise me that a number of people keep suggesting things as fact in Acorns defense that can't or haven't been proved.

Snowboarder Bo
09-19-2009, 05:45 PM
It wouldn't surprise me in the least, nor would it surprise me if he had been "shown the door" on multiple scam attempts. I know O'keffe has a agenda, but it does surprise me that a number of people keep suggesting things as fact in Acorns defense that can't or haven't been proved.

Why does that surprise you? People also keep suggesting things as fact about ACORN that are detrimental that can't or haven't been proved.

elucidator
09-19-2009, 05:50 PM
That's different. ACORN's guilty.

cosmosdan
09-19-2009, 05:56 PM
It wouldn't surprise me in the least, nor would it surprise me if he had been "shown the door" on multiple scam attempts. I know O'keffe has a agenda, but it does surprise me that a number of people keep suggesting things as fact in Acorns defense that can't or haven't been proved.

What has been suggested as fact to defend ACORN?

wolf11469
09-19-2009, 06:15 PM
Why does that surprise you? People also keep suggesting things as fact about ACORN that are detrimental that can't or haven't been proved.

True, but there are plenty of people on this board ready to beat them down. ;)

wolf11469
09-19-2009, 06:17 PM
What has been suggested as fact to defend ACORN?

Perhaps I shouldn't say Acorn, but instead the people on the tape.

Frank
09-19-2009, 06:20 PM
I haven't heard whether he has been asked. Has that request been made?

If I were in his shoes, I would be reluctant to give away the original tapes to anyone either. How could I be assured I would get them back? Who would I give them to? How could I be assured that the person or entity I gave them to is unbiased? How would they analyze them?

In this hyperpolitical atmosphere, anything he does is going to be questioned. Just like Bush or Obama, there is nothing he can do that will satisfy a certain percentage of people.
Well, I'm asking.

Releasing the tapes does not mean handing over the originals. It could be as simple as holding a news conference and playing them for the media. It could be making full copies of the originals.

I'm not sure why he should be afraid of being questioned. We're questioning ACORN, and it is equally valid to question O'Keefe.

cosmosdan
09-19-2009, 07:05 PM
Perhaps I shouldn't say Acorn, but instead the people on the tape.

Well either way, what specifically has been presented as factual in their defense?

Since ACORN and it's workers are the ones being attacked with certain claims we're discussing what is factual and what isn't. An edited tape is hardly convincing proof.

wolf11469
09-19-2009, 07:38 PM
Well either way, what specifically has been presented as factual in their defense?

Since ACORN and it's workers are the ones being attacked with certain claims we're discussing what is factual and what isn't. An edited tape is hardly convincing proof.

The edited tape hasn't convinced me of anything yet .... I want to see the full tapes .. but I'm not going to dismiss it because Opie is to white to be a belivable pimp

Well, the one I have asked about several times is Acorns statement that O'keffe has tried to pull this stunt for months and been shown the door in all but a few times. I have seen this used to argue that its just a few bad apples and its not surprising when he scores a few hits. Now, that's a perfectly valid arguments if Acorns statement is True, However O'keffe has denied it being true.

While I wouldn't be surprised if it was true, should Acorn have to back their statement up at all or should I just go with


Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic
ACORN doesn't have to prove jack shit. Let's see douchey-pimp's unedited tapes.

cosmosdan
09-19-2009, 09:39 PM
The edited tape hasn't convinced me of anything yet .... I want to see the full tapes .. but I'm not going to dismiss it because Opie is to white to be a belivable pimp

Well, the one I have asked about several times is Acorns statement that O'keffe has tried to pull this stunt for months and been shown the door in all but a few times. I have seen this used to argue that its just a few bad apples and its not surprising when he scores a few hits. Now, that's a perfectly valid arguments if Acorns statement is True, However O'keffe has denied it being true.

While I wouldn't be surprised if it was true, should Acorn have to back their statement up at all or should I just go with


Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic
ACORN doesn't have to prove jack shit. Let's see douchey-pimp's unedited tapes.

Was anyone presenting that as factual? I guess I missed that. How do you propose they prove it?They weren't secretly video taping anyone. Since they are the ones being accused I tend to agree that they don't have to prove anything. The statements of their people should be enough to require proof from those making the accusations.
Let's also consider the source. Fox has a history of this type of select editing to create an impression. Anything they run like that deserves automatic skepticism because of their history. From there we have several details that add to the suspicion that it's BS.

I'd like to see ACORN with the help of some decent reporting fight back and show this guy as a liar if they can but I doubt they are equipped to fight this kind of attack aggressively. A good investigative reporter should be able by interviewing the workers he talked to and those that threw him out. Just an article indicating it's a con would pressure him and Fox to prove it. The problem is the damage is already done to some extent so Fox doesn't have to prove anything or back up their accusations. There are plenty of people who are eager to believe something bad about ACORN so just getting the story out there and creating the impression false or not , seems to be enough.
As I said before; I know it's very possible in any large organization to have some bad employees who display really bad judgment. That doesn't mean they were seriously trying to help this guy set up his prostitution business with underage girls. It just smells really fishy to me and until the tapes come out I give the benefit of the doubt to the accused.

They tried like hell to find ACORN guilty of some kind of voter fraud and couldn't. Were mistakes made? Yes. Were they guilty of what they were being accused of. No.

elucidator
09-19-2009, 10:01 PM
Problem one: ACORN doesn't have any money. Common problem amongst the achingly sincere left, they never have any money. ACORN gets money, yeah, but they are primarily a means of getting and disbursing grants, they don't get a profit. The real pros in the media rackets are, to a large degree, whores. Where does ACORN get the money?

You want to know how dumb these people are? If you gave them a wad of cash, and told them they could spend it on a fancy lawyer or PR firm to defend themselves, or they could spend it on another voter registration drive, they'd spend it on the drive. That's how dumb these people are.

Problem the second: their enemies are ferociously committed, their friends and allies don't think they are very important. And they probably aren't. If they dissolve, another coalition and clearing house will take up the slack, nature abhors a vacuum, politics will fill one quicker. Oddly, the people who hate them wildly exaggerate their importance, their expected allies mostly shrug.

cosmosdan
09-19-2009, 10:14 PM
Problem one: ACORN doesn't have any money. Common problem amongst the achingly sincere left, they never have any money. ACORN gets money, yeah, but they are primarily a means of getting and disbursing grants, they don't get a profit. The real pros in the media rackets are, to a large degree, whores. Where does ACORN get the money?

You want to know how dumb these people are? If you gave them a wad of cash, and told them they could spend it on a fancy lawyer or PR firm to defend themselves, or they could spend it on another voter registration drive, they'd spend it on the drive. That's how dumb these people are.

Problem the second: their enemies are ferociously committed, their friends and allies don't think they are very important. And they probably aren't. If they dissolve, another coalition and clearing house will take up the slack, nature abhors a vacuum, politics will fill one quicker. Oddly, the people who hate them wildly exaggerate their importance, their expected allies mostly shrug.

You're probably right. The thing I see is that it's time for the left {and those on the right who want a reasonably honest debate } to go after those who willingly spread lies for political gain. It's time for the voters to see how this damages our society and our chances of real solutions to problems. That's why standing up for Van Jones, and ACORN might be the right approach.

elucidator
09-19-2009, 10:32 PM
Strictly as a question of tatics? Realpolitik? Like Carville and Buchanan think? Then probably not.

ACORN is already stained in the public mind, it ain't fair, it ain't right, but you can fool all of the people once in a while. Shit happens. But the people and organizations that make up ACORN won't simply wither away. And the strategy of voter registration and community organizing ain't going anywhere either. We need what ACORN is, but that isn't the same as needing ACORN itself.

Me, if I were Commissar for Strategery, I'd hunker down, bide my time, and wait for one of them to step on his dick. ACORN cost a lot of political poker chips, I think Joe Wilson pretty much gave them back. They're running a bit frantic, they'll do it again.

Evil One
09-19-2009, 11:01 PM
Well, I'm asking.

Releasing the tapes does not mean handing over the originals. It could be as simple as holding a news conference and playing them for the media. It could be making full copies of the originals.

I'm not sure why he should be afraid of being questioned. We're questioning ACORN, and it is equally valid to question O'Keefe.

I totally agree.

I hope he does release them.

elucidator
09-19-2009, 11:32 PM
Seems to me that if the Forces of Darkness truly believed they had they pure-D number one kosher goods, no force on Earth could stop them from releasing the unedited tapes. If they could pass scrupulous inspection, you could threaten them with murder, mayhem, and lawyers, and they would still release them, if only to milk if for another day or two.

Leaper
09-20-2009, 12:21 AM
One could argue that it doesn't matter. The initial story has been firmly implanted, and even if every inch of footage were declared fake tomorrow, there would still be references on some blogs from now until doomsday about what "happened" in 2009.

I see this everywhere, on every side of the aisle, on matters ranging from political to completely mundane. Whether it's done deliberately or it just happens varies.

Frylock
09-20-2009, 08:22 AM
Will someone ask Shodan if he can look at Vinny's Post picture above and seriously state that anyone would believe that clown is a pimp? I'd do it, but the hamsters protect him from my posts, due to delicacy.

I'm trying to find the picture referenced, but can't find a post by anyone named "vinny". Could someone point me to it?

cosmosdan
09-20-2009, 08:55 AM
Strictly as a question of tatics? Realpolitik? Like Carville and Buchanan think? Then probably not.

ACORN is already stained in the public mind, it ain't fair, it ain't right, but you can fool all of the people once in a while. Shit happens. But the people and organizations that make up ACORN won't simply wither away. And the strategy of voter registration and community organizing ain't going anywhere either. We need what ACORN is, but that isn't the same as needing ACORN itself.

Me, if I were Commissar for Strategery, I'd hunker down, bide my time, and wait for one of them to step on his dick. ACORN cost a lot of political poker chips, I think Joe Wilson pretty much gave them back. They're running a bit frantic, they'll do it again.

You may be right. I'm thinking if this isn't exposed and the pattern of lies isn't exposed it will all resurface in 2010 and 2012. They need to be actively working to expose the lies and the pattern so the voters are upset at that kind of tactic. We need OUTFOXED II and one about Beck called False Prophet.

elucidator
09-20-2009, 11:46 AM
I'm trying to find the picture referenced, but can't find a post by anyone named "vinny". Could someone point me to it?

The reference "Vinny" is to Vinyl Turnip, well known as a drive-by poster, snark enthusiast and general nogoodnik. He posted an early picture of Dudley Dumbfuck in his pimp costume, upstream. You could also get there by googling James O'Keefe.

Frank
09-20-2009, 12:03 PM
The reference "Vinny" is to Vinyl Turnip, well known as a drive-by poster, snark enthusiast and general nogoodnik. He posted an early picture of Dudley Dumbfuck in his pimp costume, upstream. You could also get there by googling James O'Keefe.
Oh, great. Another thread hijacked into being all about Vinyl Turnip. :(

(Actually, I'm kind of amazed. Here we are on page 12, and the thread is still exactly on the focus of the OP. We don't do that very often around here.)

elucidator
09-20-2009, 12:17 PM
Frank? I'm kidding.

Frank
09-20-2009, 12:20 PM
Frank? I'm kidding.
Whoosh. As I would have hoped my parenthical comment would have shown.

You high? :p

elucidator
09-20-2009, 12:24 PM
Compared to what?

jsgoddess
09-20-2009, 12:28 PM
Compared to what?

That low-down dirty Vinyl Turnip?

(I laughed.)

And yeah, if I were hiring someone to play the role of "pimp" I think I would look elsewhere.

cosmosdan
09-20-2009, 12:43 PM
That low-down dirty Vinyl Turnip?

(I laughed.)

And yeah, if I were hiring someone to play the role of "pimp" I think I would look elsewhere.

I felt the same way. Why would anyone take this guy seriously as pimp? Still, if all the ACORN employees were just playing along why haven't we heard their side of it. Are they pissed because they got fired? Why aren't they defending themselves if not ACORN.

jsgoddess
09-20-2009, 01:21 PM
I felt the same way. Why would anyone take this guy seriously as pimp? Still, if all the ACORN employees were just playing along why haven't we heard their side of it. Are they pissed because they got fired? Why aren't they defending themselves if not ACORN.

My guess is there is damning stuff all mixed and jumbled in with non-damning stuff. The full film isn't being released because it mitigates the edited film, but the ACORN workers aren't coming forward because they DID do wrong stuff.

But that's just a guess.

elucidator
09-20-2009, 01:34 PM
That low-down dirty Vinyl Turnip?

(I laughed.)

And yeah, if I were hiring someone to play the role of "pimp" I think I would look elsewhere.

Given a history of unspeakably bad puns, the clearest possible mark of moral bankruptcy and intellectual depravity, I was thinking lawyer. But perhaps I am too harsh.

cosmosdan
09-20-2009, 01:59 PM
My guess is there is damning stuff all mixed and jumbled in with non-damning stuff. The full film isn't being released because it mitigates the edited film, but the ACORN workers aren't coming forward because they DID do wrong stuff.

But that's just a guess.

Yep. Though it pains me to say it a few of them could have taken him seriously and actually been giving advice about prostitution.

jsgoddess
09-20-2009, 02:30 PM
Yep. Though it pains me to say it a few of them could have taken him seriously and actually been giving advice about prostitution.

Oh sure. There isn't anything about agreeing with my politics in any way that makes people wise or infallible.

Frylock
09-20-2009, 05:02 PM
The reference "Vinny" is to Vinyl Turnip, well known as a drive-by poster, snark enthusiast and general nogoodnik. He posted an early picture of Dudley Dumbfuck in his pimp costume, upstream. You could also get there by googling James O'Keefe.

If it's not on the first page of a google image search, I don't believe it exists. ;)

(And in this case, it's not even on the second so... I'll go find Vinyl Turnip's post.

Frylock
09-20-2009, 05:04 PM
but the ACORN workers aren't coming forward because they DID do wrong stuff.


I figure they're taking some standard legal advice not to talk to the press. I think most lawyers say this in most situations no matter what the situation is, just because they want to avoid the possibility their client might make a mistake.

Or if not lawyers (since apparently they're not being indicted? May be fighting their firing though) they may just be wary of talking to people now that they've been made a fool of once.

elucidator
09-20-2009, 06:04 PM
I did a bit of poking around, on the assumption that nobody should miss out on a chance to laugh.....

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/09/acorn_sting_pimp_is_nj_man_who.html

Not the best I've seen, there was a snippet of video of him similarly dressed and facing the grueling interrogation by Fox and Friends, but this will do. It also has other snippets of information of marginal interest to fans of fungoids...

...editor of a conservative magazine at Rutgers University, James O'Keefe III mounted a satirical campaign to ban Lucky Charms cereal from campus dining halls on the premise the breakfast fare was offensive to Irish-Americans.

The operation, which included a hidden-camera video with a Rutgers dining services official, was intended to demonstrate what O'Keefe saw as the absurdity of political correctness....

Thank Heavens it wasn't Froot Loops.

..."The tone of my videos is unique," said O'Keefe in a telephone interview Wednesday. "I'm not just reporting on something, I'm becoming something I'm reporting on."...

(Emphasis added to underscore what appears to a serious case of irony deficiency...)

...This has become his work full-time," the elder O'Keefe said Wednesday in a telephone interview from the family's Westwood home. "He's an extremely conscientious, hard-working young man, and we're proud of him."....

Well, if you were dying to know what an Eagle Scout from Westwood thinks an urban pimp looks like, well, there you have it.

The good news? He's making a career of it! They're going to give him the gunpowder and the fuses, and he's going to spread himself all over the neighborhood.

Czarcasm
09-22-2009, 07:19 AM
ACORN worker in video had reported fakers to police. (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ACORN_HIDDEN_CAMERA?SITE=VABRM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)

Captain_Awesome
09-22-2009, 08:07 AM
ACORN worker in video had reported fakers to police. (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ACORN_HIDDEN_CAMERA?SITE=VABRM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)

You can't go around further undermining already illogical hysteria on the basis of evidence. It's just not cricket.

Lightnin'
09-22-2009, 08:16 AM
I'm sure the only response we'll see from... various interested parties... will be thus:

"Vera was fired on Thursday."

So why was the employee fired? Huh? Huh? Ain't got an answer for that, do ya? Obviously, ACORN was up to no good, and threw the employee under the bus! Obama sucks.

Gyrate
09-22-2009, 08:37 AM
ACORN worker in video had reported fakers to police. (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ACORN_HIDDEN_CAMERA?SITE=VABRM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)It sounds more like "spoke to someone he knew in the police department who asked for more information, and then dropped it when it became apparent it was a dupe" rather than any sort of formal report. But it still suggests that at least some ACORNers didn't just blithely go along with the story.

Diogenes the Cynic
09-22-2009, 09:58 AM
It sounds more like "spoke to someone he knew in the police department who asked for more information, and then dropped it when it became apparent it was a dupe" rather than any sort of formal report. But it still suggests that at least some ACORNers didn't just blithely go along with the story.
It wasn't the detective that said he'd been "duped," it was the ACORN worker.

Juan Carlos Vera, the ACORN worker, called the detective after the initial incident at the ACORN office. The detective asked for more info. A few days later, Vera called back and told the detective he'd been duped.

jayjay
09-22-2009, 10:04 AM
It wasn't the detective that said he'd been "duped," it was the ACORN worker.

Juan Carlos Vera, the ACORN worker, called the detective after the initial incident at the ACORN office. The detective asked for more info. A few days later, Vera called back and told the detective he'd been duped.

This actually nicely explains WHY Vera went along with O'Keefe. Given the choice of throwing these two pieces of crap out of the office, on the one hand, and finding out as much detail about their operation so you can go to the police about it and possibly get these poor girls rescued, on the other, which one are you more likely to do if you're already predisposed to want to help people in bad situations?

Gyrate
09-22-2009, 10:09 AM
It wasn't the detective that said he'd been "duped," it was the ACORN worker.
Sorry - unclear writing on my part. I meant the ACORN worker.

Diogenes the Cynic
09-22-2009, 10:10 AM
So how was it not a formal report then?

Bricker
09-22-2009, 10:25 AM
It wasn't the detective that said he'd been "duped," it was the ACORN worker.

Juan Carlos Vera, the ACORN worker, called the detective after the initial incident at the ACORN office. The detective asked for more info. A few days later, Vera called back and told the detective he'd been duped.

By "the detective," you mean his cousin?

Diogenes the Cynic
09-22-2009, 10:32 AM
By "the detective," you mean his cousin?
By "cousin," you mean "the detective?"

Is there some reason you believe it's relevant that the detective was his cousin? So fucking what?

Euphonious Polemic
09-22-2009, 10:35 AM
By "the detective," you mean his cousin?

Is your point that Vera's report lacks veracity because the police detective was related to him?

If so, why not come right out and say that? Don't dance around man!

Gyrate
09-22-2009, 10:47 AM
The issue is whether it was treated as a report to the police (in which case the call will have been documented and on file with the police) or just an informal call to the guy's cousin asking for advice (in which case it won't be).

Euphonious Polemic
09-22-2009, 10:50 AM
See Bricker - was that so hard?

Diogenes the Cynic
09-22-2009, 11:03 AM
The issue is whether it was treated as a report to the police (in which case the call will have been documented and on file with the police) or just an informal call to the guy's cousin asking for advice (in which case it won't be).
I don't see how it makes any difference. He still called the cops either way, and his cousin took it seriously enough to request more information.

Mijin
09-22-2009, 11:05 AM
Could an argument not be made that the best way to deal with a customer that claims to be doing something illegal is to play along, and then afterwards call the police?

That way you hear about the full extent of the illegal activities, and you also don't put yourself at risk (of violence, e.g. if you were to tell the customer that you were calling the police).


....I guess this logic falls down against the danger that you're being filmed by a conservative news agency. :smack:

Bricker
09-22-2009, 02:14 PM
See Bricker - was that so hard?

I thought my criticism was obvious. One can make a good-faith argument either way -- even though it's his cousin he's calling, it was still a report to the police, OR the fact that it was his cousin clearly undercuts the story that he wanted to make an official report.

My rebuke was to Diogenes for carefully omitting the fact that it was hsi cousin by referring only to "the detective."

For myself, I'm inclined to say that this guy did not act inappropriately. He called his cousin, a cop, to check on what he should do. That's enough of a call to authorities to satisfy me... and to illustrate what DIDN'T happen at other offices.

Bricker
09-22-2009, 02:15 PM
Could an argument not be made that the best way to deal with a customer that claims to be doing something illegal is to play along, and then afterwards call the police?

Sure. Except that in these stories, we don't have too many "call the cops later" events.

Diogenes the Cynic
09-22-2009, 02:17 PM
OR the fact that it was his cousin clearly undercuts the story that he wanted to make an official report.
How so?
My rebuke was to Diogenes for carefully omitting the fact that it was hsi cousin by referring only to "the detective."
It was irrelevant that it was his cousin. Why should I include irrelevant details?

Euphonious Polemic
09-22-2009, 03:04 PM
Sure. Except that in these stories, we don't have too many "call the cops later" events.

.... that we've heard of yet.

Or, we have not heard about the ACORN worker that went home and said: "you would not believe the practical jokers that were in my office today! We played along and cracked up with them afterward when the cameras were off."

Sam Stone
09-22-2009, 03:19 PM
Yes, because you know in my job, if someone were to call me and suggest that I take a kickback or look the other way over a known engineering defect, I might just 'play along' for yucks.

This casts a lot of stuff in a whole new light. John DeLorean wasn't actually trying to sell cocaine to undercover cops - it was all just a big joke! Those White House tapes of Nixon? Of COURSE he knew he was being recorded. You'd have to be an idiot to not realize that. So the obvious conclusion is that he was just joking around. In fact, SNL did a skit with Dan Ayckroyd where they showed him doing just that - saying something incriminating, then covering the mike and laughing with Haldeman and Erlichman.

So if you ever get hauled into court for say, trying to bribe a cop, you should just use the "It was just a joke!" defense. I'm sure it will work for you.

You guys have even lost Jon Stewart (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Jon-Stewart-slams-the-media-for-missing-ACORN-story-Where-the-hell-were-you-59469292.html) from your side, but you're going to hang in there and claim that this is a non-story. At the very least, your tenacity is impressive.

Diogenes the Cynic
09-22-2009, 03:22 PM
It sucks that this whole fake scandal is falling apart, doesn't it?

ElvisL1ves
09-22-2009, 03:27 PM
Darn, just when the proof that Democrats Iz Evul and Obama Iz Teh Antichrist was right in their hands, too.

Sam, perhaps you could help us all by summarizing what you see as the significance of this story, along with what you consider to be the relevant facts. If it's just the usual "The 'Left' is a Monolith with a Hive Mind" stuff once again, I'll be highly disappointed, though. Not surprised, but disappointed anyway.

Sam Stone
09-22-2009, 03:27 PM
It sucks that this whole fake scandal is falling apart, doesn't it?
It is? That's news to me.

elucidator
09-22-2009, 03:31 PM
No doubt.

Nars Glinley
09-22-2009, 03:33 PM
It sucks that this whole fake scandal is falling apart, doesn't it?

The employees that were fired, including Vera, would probably disagree with this assessment. It may not be front page news anymore but given the nature of scandals, that's not surprising.

Diogenes the Cynic
09-22-2009, 03:34 PM
It is? That's news to me.
Keep up.

Your rant would have more resonance, by the way, if your boy, Chuckles the Pimp wasn't hiding the unedited tapes.

Diogenes the Cynic
09-22-2009, 03:36 PM
The employees that were fired, including Vera, would probably disagree with this assessment. It may not be front page news anymore but given the nature of scandals, that's not surprising.
There is no scandal. I know that hurts, but there it is. All that happened was that a right wing Michael Moore wannabe got some face time on Fox News.

Nars Glinley
09-22-2009, 03:41 PM
There is no scandal. I know that hurts, but there it is. All that happened was that a right wing Michael Moore wannabe got some face time on Fox News.

In that case, ACORN must be a really shitty place to work if they'll fire you for no reason.

Diogenes the Cynic
09-22-2009, 03:43 PM
Maybe there was a reason, maybe not. That doesn't make it a scandal. ACORN didn't do anything wrong.

yorick73
09-22-2009, 03:51 PM
Are any of you here really stupid enough to believe that multiple employees in multiple offices all figured out they were duped AND played along? And that they played it straight the WHOLE time? Most people would have been at least a little sarcastic.

Bricker
09-22-2009, 03:54 PM
Maybe there was a reason, maybe not. That doesn't make it a scandal. ACORN didn't do anything wrong.

Well, Bertha Lewis says that she was outraged at what her employees did on the tapes, and anyone else should be, too.

So is she lying?

yorick73
09-22-2009, 03:58 PM
There is no scandal. I know that hurts, but there it is. All that happened was that a right wing Michael Moore wannabe got some face time on Fox News.


Wait...you forgot that both the House and Senate voted in large majorities to defund ACORN. And ACORN got kicked off the Census project.

Hamlet
09-22-2009, 03:59 PM
So have they made the full, unedited tape available yet?

yorick73
09-22-2009, 04:03 PM
That Juan Carlos Vera story seems fishy too. The guy offers to help with smuggling underage girls into the country and asks the Ho how much for her time. He waits TWO DAYS and then contacts his COUSIN?!? Sounds like he finally realized something wasn't right with that visit and tried to cover his ass. If he had any interest in getting law enforcement involved he would have called right after they left. Also, he probably would have attempted to get some contact info from the two.

Nars Glinley
09-22-2009, 04:17 PM
So have they made the full, unedited tape available yet?

Would you expect ABC/NBC/CBS to do the same? Absent a court order, would they ever?

Hamlet
09-22-2009, 04:22 PM
Would you expect ABC/NBC/CBS to do the same?Ahhh, go with the old tried and true deflection technique.

I'll take it the answer is no.

Nars Glinley
09-22-2009, 04:25 PM
Ahhh, go with the old tried and true deflection technique.

I'll take it the answer is no.

Yes. The answer is no. I assumed it was a rhetorical question.

Justin_Bailey
09-22-2009, 04:26 PM
Well, Bertha Lewis says that she was outraged at what her employees did on the tapes, and anyone else should be, too.

So is she lying?

No, she wasn't lying. But all she did was discipline (in this case, dismiss) an employee that was acting horribly unprofessionally.

That is not a "scandal" in any sense of the word.

ElvisL1ves
09-22-2009, 04:31 PM
Wait...you forgot that both the House and Senate voted in large majorities to defund ACORN. And ACORN got kicked off the Census project.
And that demonstrates what? The factuality and significance of the "scandal", or mere political cowardice?

cosmosdan
09-22-2009, 04:53 PM
This is probably another thread but this topic reminds me of those times I wonder why people seem to tolerate bad or even unlawful behavior in their community. Does it seem that certain communities treat some unlawful behavior as if it's just someone doing what they have to to survive.

Then again I have friends who smoke dope. We probably know people who snort a little coke now and then.

Could it be that in these poor communities looking the other way concerning certain unlawful acts is par for the course.

And I'm still amazed when I see pictures of Okeefe and his Ho that anyone took them seriously.

cosmosdan
09-22-2009, 04:59 PM
whoops double post

Diogenes the Cynic
09-22-2009, 05:00 PM
Well, Bertha Lewis says that she was outraged at what her employees did on the tapes, and anyone else should be, too.

So is she lying?
How is an organization firing bad employees a scandal?

Diogenes the Cynic
09-22-2009, 05:01 PM
Wait...you forgot that both the House and Senate voted in large majorities to defund ACORN. And ACORN got kicked off the Census project.
How is that a scandal?

yorick73
09-22-2009, 05:03 PM
And that demonstrates what? The factuality and significance of the "scandal", or mere political cowardice?

Both. Were there any laws broken by ACORN in this whole thing? Nah, unless they can find a memo from upper management that tells employees that they should be doing these things. The term "scandal" does not imply that any law was broken. Remeber the Clinton scandal was the affair even though that in itself was not against the law.

The FBI is trying to determine if ACORN broke any laws. We'll see in time. But, this scandal has caused congress to quickly distance itself, and our money, from this organization. Good enough for me.

Diogenes the Cynic
09-22-2009, 05:06 PM
Would you expect ABC/NBC/CBS to do the same? Absent a court order, would they ever?
I would expect them to do so, yes, but the person hiding the tapes is pimp boy, not any news networks, as far as I know. I'm sure you would agree that it's impossible to make an informed evaluation, and certainly irresponsible to make accusations without being able to view the full tapes.

elucidator
09-22-2009, 05:21 PM
An interesting wrinkle has evolved....

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_09/020067.php

It no doubt seemed like a good idea at the time. Republican lawmakers intended to stop federal funds that might go to ACORN, wrote a measure that blocked expenditures for "any organization that has filed a fraudulent form with any Federal or State regulatory agency."...

You already kinda know where this is going, don't you?

...Lockheed Martin and Northrop Gumman both popped up quickly, with 20 fraud cases between them, and the longer list is a Who's Who of weapons manufacturers and defense contractors...

Diogenes the Cynic
09-22-2009, 05:26 PM
And the GOP is hoisted on it's own retards.

Nars Glinley
09-22-2009, 05:35 PM
And the GOP is hoisted on it's own retards.

What are you, 12?

Nars Glinley
Proud older brother of a "retard".

Gangster Octopus
09-22-2009, 05:46 PM
And then there is this little nugget (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ACORN_HIDDEN_CAMERA?SITE=FLSTU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)...


Police say a worker with the activist group ACORN who was caught on video giving advice about human smuggling to a couple posing as a pimp and a prostitute had reported the incident to authorities.


Damn that ACORN!!

elucidator
09-22-2009, 05:50 PM
Update: When I read about the above reported bill, I had the impression that is was a prospective bill, awaiting action. Not so, the bill was passed. I note this correction in gleeful anticipation....

Nars Glinley
09-22-2009, 05:51 PM
And then there is this little nugget (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ACORN_HIDDEN_CAMERA?SITE=FLSTU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)...



Damn that ACORN!!

You gotta keep up. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11582259&postcount=564)

Diogenes the Cynic
09-22-2009, 05:59 PM
The bill might be unconstitutional anyway. Jerry Nadler is challenging it as a Bill of attainder (http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0909/Nadler_ACORN_ban_unconstitutional.html).

A lot of defense contractors better hope that Nadler is right. Either way, the whole thing still exposes the Republicans as shallow, disingenuous hypocrites.

Gangster Octopus
09-22-2009, 06:03 PM
The bill might be unconstitutional anyway. Jerry Nadler is challenging it as a Bill of attainder (http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0909/Nadler_ACORN_ban_unconstitutional.html).


Quick warning, if you value your brain cells, do not read the comments after the article in that link.

Snowboarder Bo
09-22-2009, 06:12 PM
Quick warning, if you value your brain cells, do not read the comments after the article in that link.

Yeah, the comments after are full of LOLs. I like how they argue that a Bill of Attainder has to be targeted at a person or a group, and that somehow ACORN is neither.

cosmosdan
09-22-2009, 06:23 PM
Both. Were there any laws broken by ACORN in this whole thing? Nah, unless they can find a memo from upper management that tells employees that they should be doing these things. The term "scandal" does not imply that any law was broken. Remeber the Clinton scandal was the affair even though that in itself was not against the law.

The FBI is trying to determine if ACORN broke any laws. We'll see in time. But, this scandal has caused congress to quickly distance itself, and our money, from this organization. Good enough for me.

I dunno, mighta been some laws broken (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2342824/posts)

Leaper
09-22-2009, 08:37 PM
It's equally alarming -- perhaps more so -- to see OTHER people reflexively tying the President in to ACORN, as though he is some sort of masked villian with an alter ego as CEO of ACORN, and we're just days away from the damning proof.

The only real link Obama has to ACORN is that it seem clear ACORN wanted Obama to win the election. Since they appear to have been joined in this venture by about 50 million other people, it's absurd to single them out for anything related to Obama. Seriously -- do you people have some script that requires you to tie in Obama somehow? It's ridiculous; cut it out.

Not stopping the Wall Street Journal. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574427041636360388.html?mod=djemEditorialPage) While its assertions about his history with the organization may be true, I just don't see how they draw the conclusion from them that he "should have known" about the scandals. Why?

Bricker
09-22-2009, 09:17 PM
The bill might be unconstitutional anyway. Jerry Nadler is challenging it as a Bill of attainder (http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0909/Nadler_ACORN_ban_unconstitutional.html).

A lot of defense contractors better hope that Nadler is right. Either way, the whole thing still exposes the Republicans as shallow, disingenuous hypocrites.

No.

That argument is not supported by any existing Bill of Attainder decisions. The prohibition forbids non-judicial punishments or determinations of guilt. The mere decision to fund or not fund a particular agency cannot be a bill of attainder (it would be if the bill sought to refuse to pay a specific named agency for work already done, of course).

But ... no. In fact, the defense contractors' plight suggests an even farther distance from a bill of attainder. A bill that prohibits payment to ANY entity that's filed a fraudulent submission is clearly not a bill of attainder.

Ale
09-22-2009, 09:44 PM
Yes, because you know in my job, if someone were to call me and suggest that I take a kickback or look the other way over a known engineering defect, I might just 'play along' for yucks.

How about if the person in question is disguised as Snidely Whiplash and the engineering defect is a railroad switch that won't work?

Diogenes the Cynic
09-22-2009, 10:19 PM
No.

That argument is not supported by any existing Bill of Attainder decisions. The prohibition forbids non-judicial punishments or determinations of guilt. The mere decision to fund or not fund a particular agency cannot be a bill of attainder (it would be if the bill sought to refuse to pay a specific named agency for work already done, of course).

But ... no. In fact, the defense contractors' plight suggests an even farther distance from a bill of attainder. A bill that prohibits payment to ANY entity that's filed a fraudulent submission is clearly not a bill of attainder.

The bill specifically names ACORN, according to Nadler. I haven't seen the exact language.

El_Kabong
09-22-2009, 10:57 PM
Would you expect ABC/NBC/CBS to do the same? Absent a court order, would they ever?

I've said this before, but in my view, any reputable news organization caring to do a story on this that goes any deeper than "O'Keefe and FOX News claim..." would pretty much have to insist on being given a chance to view the unedited tapes; unedited copies at the very least. Otherwise, aside from getting statements from the former ACORN employees themselves (also not forthcoming, apparently), there seems no objective way of ascertaining how accurate the edited versions are as to the events they purport to show.

O'Keefe of course is not obliged to do this if he don't want to, but at this point anyone who believes that the excerpts shown were not cut to at least accentuate the point O'Keefe was trying to make, and possibly misrepresent the facts, is being rather foolish, IMO.

Bricker
09-23-2009, 08:01 AM
The bill specifically names ACORN, according to Nadler. I haven't seen the exact language.

Then how are the defense contractors harmed?

In any event, even if the bill specifically refuses further funding for ACORN, by name, it's not a bill of attainder. If the bill seeks to scoop back money already paid, or prohibits the government from paying ACORN for work already performed, then it is.

Diogenes the Cynic
09-23-2009, 09:55 AM
We'll see. Nadler is a lawyer too. I'm sure he knows what he's doing.

Either way, it's a loss for the Republicans. It's actually worse for them if the bill holds up Constitutionally.

jayjay
09-23-2009, 10:16 AM
Then how are the defense contractors harmed?

In any event, even if the bill specifically refuses further funding for ACORN, by name, it's not a bill of attainder. If the bill seeks to scoop back money already paid, or prohibits the government from paying ACORN for work already performed, then it is.

My understanding is that it does name ACORN, but it doesn't limit the effect of the bill to ACORN. There's a line about "and any other government contractor that has had fraud charges against the government filed against it" or something like that.

Bricker
09-23-2009, 11:02 AM
We'll see. Nadler is a lawyer too. I'm sure he knows what he's doing.


I suspect he does too. I suspect he knows this theory of his has no legal merit, but it will draw public attention to the issue, framed in a way he likes.

ElvisL1ves
09-23-2009, 11:23 AM
How about if the person in question is disguised as Snidely Whiplash and the engineering defect is a railroad switch that won't work?

Depends on if the fair maiden is tied to the tracks until she signs over the deed to the ranch.

elucidator
09-23-2009, 11:46 AM
I, for one, most heartily cheer our Republican critters for their bold and unselfish nobility! This is an act for the ages, where a political party casts aside any notion of party benefit, and boldly leads the way to good government, unhindered and unsullied by the corrupting influence of campaign contributions!

Like a grizzled old skank come to Jesus, they have stumbled into the light, and thrown aside the crass and cynical for the purity of civic virtue!

No doubt, some of my less accetping lefty brethren will look askance, they will suggest that the Pubbies simply fucked up, and will now scrample like cockroaches on speed scurrying to repair their most reliable monetary life-line but I say "Hold!" Let us give them the opportunity to show what they are truly made of, let us take this wonderful thing at face value! Indeed, I think the Demcritters should loudly and publicly applaud, and rush with enthusiasm to make this marvelous moment a turning point in our history!

Bravo, I say! And again, bravo! Let us rip them out, these corruptors, tear them root and branch, and if they fall by thei wayside, so much the better! This is a proud day for our SDMB Republicans, and I sncerely hope they rush to the Boards to crow and cheer themselves for their civic virtue. Both of them, if they are so available!

MOIDALIZE
09-23-2009, 01:06 PM
Then how are the defense contractors harmed?

In any event, even if the bill specifically refuses further funding for ACORN, by name, it's not a bill of attainder. If the bill seeks to scoop back money already paid, or prohibits the government from paying ACORN for work already performed, then it is.


If the bill is broadly construed, it would apply to a number of defense contractors. Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla) is attempting to compile a list of the "eligible" contractors (those who have committed fraud against the federal government or employ someone who has) to put into the Congressional record (see here (http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dC1WUm40dWk4YnJNQl9sNWR6aHRybnc6MA)). The unverified list contains names like Boeing, Raytheon, and General Electric (basically the backbone of our military-industrial complex! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/22/whoops-anti-acorn-bill-ro_n_294949.html)). Congress will never allow this result, but it doesn't make it any less funny.

If it only applies to ACORN, then it sure looks like a bill of attainder to me. It essentially declares ACORN guilty of defrauding the government and forever bars them from receiving any federal funds.

Also, some perspective, from Rep. Grayson:

"The amount of money that ACORN has received in the past 20 years altogether is roughly equal to what the taxpayer paid to Haillburton each day during the war in Iraq."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/radio/2009/09/23/grayson/index.html

Bricker
09-23-2009, 02:36 PM
If it only applies to ACORN, then it sure looks like a bill of attainder to me. It essentially declares ACORN guilty of defrauding the government and forever bars them from receiving any federal funds.


The problem with this analysis is that "not being able to get future federal funding" has never, in the history of bill of attainder jurisprudence, been considered a punishment.


Here's the actual language:

SEC. 2. PROHIBITIONS ON FEDERAL FUNDS AND OTHER ACTIVITIES WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN INDICTED ORGANIZATIONS.

(a) Prohibitions- With respect to any covered organization, the following prohibitions apply:

(1) No Federal contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or any other form of agreement (including a memorandum of understanding) may be awarded to or entered into with the organization.

(2) No Federal funds in any other form may be provided to the organization.

(3) No Federal employee or contractor may promote in any way (including recommending to a person or referring to a person for any purpose) the organization.

The only section that is problematic is 2(a)(2): "No Federal funds in any other form may be provided to the organization." To the extent that this prohibits ACORN from being paid funds they are already owed, it's absolutely illegal as a bill of attainder. But apart from that, there's no particular bar to forbidding them, even by name, from receiving future funds.

Diogenes the Cynic
09-23-2009, 02:49 PM
2(a)(3) is going to kick the MIC right in the balls. Blackwater too.

MOIDALIZE
09-23-2009, 03:01 PM
The problem with this analysis is that "not being able to get future federal funding" has never, in the history of bill of attainder jurisprudence, been considered a punishment.




Assume for the sake of argument that this bill will only apply to ACORN and is only meant to apply to ACORN. Look at the defintion of a Covered Organization under section (b):

(b) Covered Organization- In this section, the term ‘covered organization’ means any of the following:


(1) Any organization that has been indicted for a violation under any Federal or State law governing the financing of a campaign for election for public office or any law governing the administration of an election for public office, including a law relating to voter registration.

(2) Any organization that had its State corporate charter terminated due to its failure to comply with Federal or State lobbying disclosure requirements.

(3) Any organization that has filed a fraudulent form with any Federal or State regulatory agency.

(4) Any organization that--



(A) employs any applicable individual, in a permanent or temporary capacity;
(B) has under contract or retains any applicable individual; or
(C) has any applicable individual acting on the organization’s behalf or with the express or apparent authority of the organization.



So, ACORN (and ACORN alone, for the sake of argument) is covered if they've been so much as indicted (not convicted) of violating a state or federal law, if they've had a corporate charter terminated, if they've filed a fraudulent form (which is a legal determination; Congress can't simply declare it so), or employ any individual so covered. ACORN is thus barred from receiving federal funds on this basis. Meanwhile, unless Congress were to completely cut off this type of funding for voter registration groups, other such groups could continue to receive federal funds, even if they would be covered under this bill if not for the fact that they aren't ACORN.

BigT
09-23-2009, 03:06 PM
What are you, 12?

Nars Glinley
Proud older brother of a "retard".

Is this a whoosh? Because I find it far offensive to refer to refer to someone with an actual mental deficiency as a retard. Now that it is no longer an official term, its sole use is that of a pejorative.

Bricker
09-23-2009, 03:18 PM
Assume for the sake of argument that this bill will only apply to ACORN and is only meant to apply to ACORN. Look at the defintion of a Covered Organization under section (b):





So, ACORN (and ACORN alone, for the sake of argument) is covered if they've been so much as indicted (not convicted) of violating a state or federal law, if they've had a corporate charter terminated, if they've filed a fraudulent form (which is a legal determination; Congress can't simply declare it so), or employ any individual so covered. ACORN is thus barred from receiving federal funds on this basis. Meanwhile, unless Congress were to completely cut off this type of funding for voter registration groups, other such groups could continue to receive federal funds, even if they would be covered under this bill if not for the fact that they aren't ACORN.

Congress can't declare, "ACORN is guilty of filing a fraudulent form." But they can say, "If ACORN has been found to have filed a fraudulent form, they are prohibited from receiving future funds."

elucidator
09-23-2009, 03:21 PM
Well, have they?

(The preceding left my keyboard in a snark-free condition, if your irony detector registers anything above 100 millihicks, you need to recalibrate.)

Bricker
09-23-2009, 03:33 PM
Well, have they?

(The preceding left my keyboard in a snark-free condition, if your irony detector registers anything above 100 millihicks, you need to recalibrate.)

I have no clue. They have filed fraudulent voting registrations, but (a) they did that on behalf of the registrants, and so far as I can discern had no discretion to NOT file them; and (b) Boards of Elections are not "regulatory agencies" within the ordinary meaning of the words. So I'd guess not, but who knows?

Hentor the Barbarian
09-23-2009, 05:09 PM
Is this a whoosh? Because I find it far offensive to refer to refer to someone with an actual mental deficiency as a retard. Now that it is no longer an official term, its sole use is that of a pejorative.Since when is mental retardation not an "official' term? It's still the term of use in the DSM-IV, and the Axis II term I would apply diagnostically.

Now, I also have two brothers who are Republican. I aasumed that's what Nars was saying as well.

elucidator
09-23-2009, 05:13 PM
It happens even in the best of families.

Nars Glinley
09-23-2009, 05:15 PM
Since when is mental retardation not an "official' term? It's still the term of use in the DSM-IV, and the Axis II term I would apply diagnostically.

Now, I also have two brothers who are Republican. I aasumed that's what Nars was saying as well.

No. My brother is mentally retarded. The term "retard" is offensive. I originally put it in quotes because I was quoting Dio who used it pejoratively to compare Republicans to the mentally disabled.

Diogenes the Cynic
09-23-2009, 06:05 PM
As someone who works with developmentally disabled people for a living, I agree that it was offensive for me to compare them to Republicans. Mea culpa.

Nars Glinley
09-23-2009, 06:52 PM
As someone who works with developmentally disabled people for a living, I agree that it was offensive for me to compare them to Republicans. Mea culpa.

I wholeheartedly agree that the developmentally disabled are better than Republicans. The Democrats don't have anything on them either.

yorick73
09-25-2009, 11:40 PM
Now the Washington Post is reporting that ACORN transferred money from it's charitable arm to its political arm...it just gets worse and worse for ACORN

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/24/AR2009092404249.html?hpid=topnews

Diogenes the Cynic
09-26-2009, 12:26 AM
Now the Washington Post is reporting that ACORN transferred money from it's charitable arm to its political arm...it just gets worse and worse for ACORN

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/24/AR2009092404249.html?hpid=topnews
These are allegations being put out by a Republican Congressman. They're also ancient and stem from the Rathke era (i.e., during the Bush administration). This is shit that's already been cleaned up under new management, but it does remind us how shitty things were under Bush.

yorick73
09-26-2009, 12:33 AM
These are allegations being put out by a Republican Congressman. They're also ancient and stem from the Rathke era (i.e., during the Bush administration). This is shit that's already been cleaned up under new management, but it does remind us how shitty things were under Bush.

I don't give Bush or the Pubs a pass on any of this. I just don't believe it has been cleaned up. The new management was supposed to clean up quite a few problems but look what's been happening lately. Oh, and Bush didn't appoint Rathke.

elucidator
09-26-2009, 12:33 AM
Global Warming. Bush. War in Iraq? Oh, yeah, fer sure, Bush. Decline in American civility? Probably Bush, why not? But shitty bookkeeping at ACORN and a bunch of naive lefties getting taken by a shyster? Bit of a stretch.

Diogenes the Cynic
09-26-2009, 12:35 AM
I don't give Bush or the Pubs a pass on any of this. I just don't believe it has been cleaned up. The new management was supposed to clean up quite a few problems but look what's been happening lately. Oh, and Bush didn't appoint Rathke.
Nothing's been happening lately. You're imagining things.

yorick73
09-26-2009, 12:36 AM
Global Warming. Bush. War in Iraq? Oh, yeah, fer sure, Bush. Decline in American civility? Probably Bush, why not? But shitty bookkeeping at ACORN and a bunch of naive lefties getting taken by a shyster? Bit of a stretch.

LOL...we finally agree about one thing (just the point about it not being Bush's fault).

elucidator
09-26-2009, 12:38 AM
Give the Pubs a pass? Aw, c'mon, Yorick, you know goddam good and well that if ACORN wasn't in the business of organizing and advocating for the poor, no Republican would give a rat's patoot about them.

The people ACORN seeks to empower are antithetical to Republican politics. And why do poor people dislike Republican politics? I mean, I don't think Republicans actually hate poor people, I just don't think it would make much difference if they did.

yorick73
09-26-2009, 12:38 AM
Nothing's been happening lately. You're imagining things.

Huh? The O'Keefe files, FBI investigations, state investigations...or were you just joking?

Diogenes the Cynic
09-26-2009, 12:44 AM
Global Warming. Bush. War in Iraq? Oh, yeah, fer sure, Bush. Decline in American civility? Probably Bush, why not? But shitty bookkeeping at ACORN and a bunch of naive lefties getting taken by a shyster? Bit of a stretch.
Not really blaming Bush for that one. I'd give only about 1-3 odds he even knew what ACORN was. Just pointing out that it definitely can't be blamed on Obama (which, of course, is the real end game here).

Having said that, my wife, the governmenent grant writer, says a lot of the gummint agencies she deals with (e.g. HUD) have tightened up considerably under Obama. It's harder to get away with shit now. When Bush was in, these agencies had gone pretty feral, what with horse afficianodos being appointed to run everything. Obama has been appointing people who actually have, like, extensive experience in the relevant fields and know what they're doing. It's like when Michael Scott quit Dunder-Mifflin and that hardass Charles guy took over the office. No more fun.

yorick73
09-26-2009, 12:44 AM
Give the Pubs a pass? Aw, c'mon, Yorick, you know goddam good and well that if ACORN wasn't in the business of organizing and advocating for the poor, no Republican would give a rat's patoot about them.

The people ACORN seeks to empower are antithetical to Republican politics. And why do poor people dislike Republican politics? I mean, I don't think Republicans actually hate poor people, I just don't think it would make much difference if they did.

I don't think you really believe the Pubs are after ACORN because they help the poor. There are plenty of organizations that help the poor that are not Republican targets. You know as well as I do that the either party should be alarmed that any corrupt organization is receiving tax money. That being said, of course either party will mainly go after the corrupt orgs that opposed to their views. I don't give the Pubs a pass on this at all.

Diogenes the Cynic
09-26-2009, 12:49 AM
Huh? The O'Keefe files, FBI investigations, state investigations...or were you just joking?
A whole lot of nothing. Sorry. This will all lead nowhere. ACORN as an organization has not been implicated in a damn thing. At worst, they hired some bad employees. Compared to Blackwater and any number of defense contractors, ACORN is Mr. Rogers.

yorick73
09-26-2009, 12:50 AM
Quick question...hopefully I don't throw off this 14 page debate! Is there a was to bold, underline, etc. without manually coding it in the body of the message? I always forget exactly how to do it and have to go back to edit it out after I fuck it up.

Diogenes the Cynic
09-26-2009, 12:50 AM
I don't think you really believe the Pubs are after ACORN because they help the poor.
No, they're after ACORN because they register minorities to vote.

yorick73
09-26-2009, 12:52 AM
A whole lot of nothing. Sorry. This will all lead nowhere. ACORN as an organization has not been implicated in a damn thing. At worst, they hired some bad employees. Compared to Blackwater and any number of defense contractors, ACORN is Mr. Rogers.

Well, where are the investigations of these groups. I welcome any investigation into companies that are receiving tax dollars. I would think that with Dems in charge of everything they would be biting at the chomp to take these companies to task...if nothing else to deflect attention from ACORN.

yorick73
09-26-2009, 12:55 AM
No, they're after ACORN because they register minorities to vote.

No, that is the motivation for the Pubs to look into the corruption charges. Not that they are minorities but that they are registering Dems in record numbers.

Diogenes the Cynic
09-26-2009, 01:00 AM
Bush immunized Blackwater from any criminal liability.

Here's a list (http://www.contractormisconduct.org/) of misconduct and fraud found against defense contractors since 1995. You'll need your scroll wheel.

Diogenes the Cynic
09-26-2009, 01:02 AM
No, that is the motivation for the Pubs to look into the corruption charges. Not that they are minorities but that they are registering Dems in record numbers.
They register whoever wants to register. That happens to be a lot of minorities and poor people. The fact that minorities and poor people vote Dem is not ACORN's doing.


And there aren't any corruption charges. Not a single instance of voter fraud has been found against ACORN.

Kobal2
09-26-2009, 01:11 AM
Not a single instance of voter fraud has been found against ACORN.

Of course there has been. They're registering blacks as having one full vote instead of 3/5th.

(sorry, couldn't help myself. I'll shut up now.)

yorick73
09-26-2009, 01:45 AM
They register whoever wants to register. That happens to be a lot of minorities and poor people. The fact that minorities and poor people vote Dem is not ACORN's doing.


And there aren't any corruption charges. Not a single instance of voter fraud has been found against ACORN.

If you look at their political wings it's not a stretch to assume they are trying to register dems in larger numbers. You are not naive enough to think that they are just trying to register random people. The fact that they are poor or minorities is incidental.

Also, the corruption charges may stem from their use of government grant money in their political arms. We'll have to wait and see.

Diogenes the Cynic
09-26-2009, 01:51 AM
What method do they use to spot these Dems and register only them?

There aren't any corruption charges.

yorick73
09-26-2009, 02:05 AM
What method do they use to spot these Dems and register only them?

Poor urban citizens and minorities...overwhelmingly democrats

There aren't any corruption charges.

Yet...give it time

Diogenes the Cynic
09-26-2009, 02:22 AM
Poor urban citizens and minorities...overwhelmingly democrats.
So you agree. What bugs conservatives us that ACORN registers minorities to vote.

yorick73
09-26-2009, 04:30 AM
So you agree. What bugs conservatives us that ACORN registers minorities to vote.

No, you are seeing this backwards. Conservatives are not happy that an organization is registering Liberals in record numbers. The same would be true of Libs if there was a Pub organization signing up Pubs left and right. But, they go after this organization because they are corrupt. Different issues.

Bricker
09-26-2009, 10:12 AM
They register whoever wants to register. That happens to be a lot of minorities and poor people. The fact that minorities and poor people vote Dem is not ACORN's doing.


And there aren't any corruption charges. Not a single instance of voter fraud has been found against ACORN.

Are you trying to say, "...as opposed to ACORN workers...?"

Or are you trying to say that "voter fraud" =/= "fradulent voter registration?"

elucidator
09-26-2009, 11:43 AM
Slipping in a bit of innuendo when facts will not suffice, Bricker? Tsk. You know damned good and well what friend Dio is saying.

Diogenes the Cynic
09-26-2009, 11:49 AM
Are you trying to say, "...as opposed to ACORN workers...?"
As far as I know, no ACORN workers have been charged with voter fraud either.
Or are you trying to say that "voter fraud" =/= "fradulent voter registration?"
This is correct. They are not the same thing. But ACORN has not been accused even of registration fraud. All they've done is REPORT attempts at registration fraud. Surely you're aware of this.

Diogenes the Cynic
09-26-2009, 11:56 AM
No, you are seeing this backwards.
No, you are. ACORN does not have magical powers enabling them to tell how the people they register will vote. They register poor people and minorities. How those people vote is not determined or manipulated by ACORN.
Conservatives are not happy that an organization is registering Liberals in record numbers.
That's for sure.
The same would be true of Libs if there was a Pub organization signing up Pubs left and right.
ACORN is a non-partisan organization. They do not impose any partisan test for registration.
But, they go after this organization because they are corrupt.
Cite that they are corrupt?

elucidator
09-26-2009, 12:11 PM
Well, of course they are, any organization is ultimately responsible for the actions of its members! Say, for instance, an ACORN worker was caught soliciting gay sex in an airport restroom!

Bricker
09-26-2009, 12:23 PM
As far as I know, no ACORN workers have been charged with voter fraud either.

This is correct. They are not the same thing. But ACORN has not been accused even of registration fraud. All they've done is REPORT attempts at registration fraud. Surely you're aware of this.

In my view, people are using "voter fraud" and "voter registration fraud" interchangeably.

It's certainly true that ACORN, the organization, has not bene charged with anything. But its workers have. One example: Five ACRON workers (http://www.seattlepi.com/local/349896_voterfraud04.html) pled guilty in King County Washington; two admitted guilt in Pierce County. These were almost certainly people trying to get padi for non-existent work, an no false ballots were actually cast.

Washington is one of twelve states that have had investigations opened against ACORN's workers for voter-related fraud.

And your defense, as I understand it, is: (1)It's not ACORN, just ACORN's workers, and (2) It's voter registrations, not actual votes.

Diogenes the Cynic
09-26-2009, 12:48 PM
My defense against what? There aren't any charges against ACORN, just against people who tried to steal from ACORN.

Essentially, you are correct. ACORN hires day workers off the street to gather registrations. Some of these people (actually very few proportionally) try to cheat their numbers to scam more money out of ACORN by falsifying registration forms to pad their numbers. As I know you're aware, ACORN is mandated to submit every form regardless of how obviously bogus it might be. They do not have the discretion not to submit them. All they can do is flag them as suspicious (which they do consistently, and which is the reason anyone even knows about the bogus forms).

At no point does voter fraud take place (and it's not a trivial difference. These phony registrations do not result in illegal votes, and do not affect elections in any way), and at no point is ACORN guilty of anything but occasionally hiring workers who try to scam them. ACORN is the victim in these petty scams, and is the agency which alerts them to the authorities.

Do you disagree with any of this?

elucidator
09-26-2009, 02:00 PM
Its simply a matter of emphasis, not dishonesty. Look here:

Voter registration fraud!

and

Voter registration fraud!

MOIDALIZE
09-26-2009, 02:01 PM
No money down? No, money down!

elucidator
09-26-2009, 02:28 PM
Don't! Stop! Oooh, don't stop......

gonzomax
09-26-2009, 02:51 PM
In true SHODAN style, I wonder why Blackwater has not been cut off with all their transgressions?

ElvisL1ves
09-27-2009, 04:01 PM
And your defense, as I understand it, is:Yes, Counselor, defense against what?

(1)It's not ACORN, just ACORN's workers, and (2) It's voter registrations, not actual votes.You really don't think there's much difference in either one, or are you just trying to support your party's pet insinuation in the absence of facts? Which is it?

You do know better. You're wasting your own time, not just everyone else's here, with this shit.

Bricker
09-27-2009, 05:09 PM
At no point does voter fraud take place (and it's not a trivial difference. These phony registrations do not result in illegal votes, and do not affect elections in any way), and at no point is ACORN guilty of anything but occasionally hiring workers who try to scam them. ACORN is the victim in these petty scams, and is the agency which alerts them to the authorities.

Do you disagree with any of this?

I was with you up until "...at no point is ACORN guilty of anything but occasionally hiring workers who try to scam them." It's true in a criminal liability sense, but not in the broader use of the word guilty. ACORN is guilty of the extremely lax management practices that encourage such fraud to happen.

The organization does not, in other words, do anything effective to discourage such fraudulent shortcuts, and indeed encourages them. I agree it's not the same level of harm that would accompany a plot to actually cast multiple fake votes, but it creates an environemtn where an obviosu next step would be casting multiple fake votes. It should be stopped.

ACORN has already initiated a wide internal review of their processes, which in my view is an absolutely appropriate reaction to these disclosures. They've promised that the results of that review, and the changes they make, will be fully disclosed. I think that's the correct approach for them to take.

Do you disagree?

Diogenes the Cynic
09-27-2009, 05:11 PM
You're grasping at straws.

gonzomax
09-27-2009, 05:34 PM
In my view, people are using "voter fraud" and "voter registration fraud" interchangeably.

It's certainly true that ACORN, the organization, has not bene charged with anything. But its workers have. One example: Five ACRON workers (http://www.seattlepi.com/local/349896_voterfraud04.html) pled guilty in King County Washington; two admitted guilt in Pierce County. These were almost certainly people trying to get padi for non-existent work, an no false ballots were actually cast.

Washington is one of twelve states that have had investigations opened against ACORN's workers for voter-related fraud.

And your defense, as I understand it, is: (1)It's not ACORN, just ACORN's workers, and (2) It's voter registrations, not actual votes.

14,000 temporary workers at election time and all you come up with is maybe 5 workers who were trying to get paid for not doing some work. or perhaps they did the job but nobody stopped to register so they padded to get paid. Nobody voted fraudulently . ACORN flags registrations that they think are suspicious. As always you have nothing but a distrust of the little people. You don't like people who aren't doing well in life, do you?

Lightnin'
09-27-2009, 05:53 PM
The organization does not, in other words, do anything effective to discourage such fraudulent shortcuts, and indeed encourages them. I agree it's not the same level of harm that would accompany a plot to actually cast multiple fake votes, but it creates an environemtn where an obviosu next step would be casting multiple fake votes. It should be stopped.
...

Do you disagree?

Heck, I disagree. Who, exactly, will be casting the fake votes?

Bricker
09-27-2009, 06:09 PM
Heck, I disagree. Who, exactly, will be casting the fake votes?

In an environment where an organization learns with confidence how they can submit phony registrations? Well, it doesn't take Hank Scorpio to plan this one: collect a few of the same people willing to falsify registrations and send them around to precincts. "Go in here and vote; tell them you're Edward Booyah. Then get back int he van and we'll drive you over to Eastern High; tell them you're Samuel Withers. Then we'll head over to...."

Gyrate
09-27-2009, 06:32 PM
In an environment where an organization learns with confidence how they can submit phony registrations?Jeebus, Bricker, what part of "They legally have to submit all registrations received, but they flag up all suspicious ones when they submit them" are you not grasping?

Or are you suggesting that ACORN actively asked its workers to falsify registrations? Because if so, have you got anything besides persistent insinuation to go with it? Hell, there's better evidence of Diebold fixing the 2004 presidental vote in Ohio than there is of ACORN attempting anything fraudulent.

Lightnin'
09-27-2009, 06:37 PM
In an environment where an organization learns with confidence how they can submit phony registrations? Well, it doesn't take Hank Scorpio to plan this one: collect a few of the same people willing to falsify registrations and send them around to precincts. "Go in here and vote; tell them you're Edward Booyah. Then get back int he van and we'll drive you over to Eastern High; tell them you're Samuel Withers. Then we'll head over to...."

Why would Hank Scorpio need an organization like ACORN to do that? That's the sort of thing that could be done right now, by anyone.

And why would he use an organization, such as ACORN, which actively reports those entries as "probably fake"?

Diogenes the Cynic
09-27-2009, 06:43 PM
In an environment where an organization learns with confidence how they can submit phony registrations? Well, it doesn't take Hank Scorpio to plan this one: collect a few of the same people willing to falsify registrations and send them around to precincts. "Go in here and vote; tell them you're Edward Booyah. Then get back int he van and we'll drive you over to Eastern High; tell them you're Samuel Withers. Then we'll head over to...."
Your scenario isn't possible. All of those registrations still have to be verified by the state before anybody can vote with them. ACORN is not involved with verification.

Even the suggestion that ACORN would or could be involved in such a complex, many tentacled conspiracy is highly farfetched and silly, especially for a scheme which would still have no chance to actually affect an election.

elucidator
09-27-2009, 06:45 PM
In an environment where an organization learns with confidence how they can submit phony registrations? Well, it doesn't take Hank Scorpio to plan this one: collect a few of the same people willing to falsify registrations and send them around to precincts. "Go in here and vote; tell them you're Edward Booyah. Then get back int he van and we'll drive you over to Eastern High; tell them you're Samuel Withers. Then we'll head over to...."

And thereby affect the vote totals by as much as three votes. How big a conspiracy would it take to affect the total by one thousand? A conspiracy that goes off without a hitch, and isn't ratted out? A rat-out that has at least an even chance of bringing the rat beacoup ching-ching? And thats only going to work if the actual vote is close enough for it to be effective, how the hell are they going to know that in advance?

You think ACORN is rich and powerful? No, they are idealistic liberal lefties with second-hand cars and cheap suits. The damned fools ain't in it for the money. Plus, as you know, they have legal sharks circling trying to charge them with jaywalking with a voter registration form in their pocket, how far do you think an actual conspiracy would get, given the conditions under which they operate?

Do you actually believe this line of drivel, or do you simply imagine we are so stupid that we will?

Bricker
09-27-2009, 06:55 PM
You're grasping at straws.

I'm not sure what this means. ACORN obviously has a huge publicity problem right now. You seem to be saying that the facts don't support this kind of response. I disagree, but regardless fo which of us is right, it's beyond cavil that the publicity problem exists. ACORN has to do something to manage its response, and in my opinion, taking your approach of denying that a real problem exists and doing nothing at all except for repeating the denial will not be a productive response.

Bricker
09-27-2009, 06:57 PM
Jeebus, Bricker, what part of "They legally have to submit all registrations received, but they flag up all suspicious ones when they submit them" are you not grasping?

Or are you suggesting that ACORN actively asked its workers to falsify registrations? Because if so, have you got anything besides persistent insinuation to go with it? Hell, there's better evidence of Diebold fixing the 2004 presidental vote in Ohio than there is of ACORN attempting anything fraudulent.

Why would Hank Scorpio need an organization like ACORN to do that? That's the sort of thing that could be done right now, by anyone.

And why would he use an organization, such as ACORN, which actively reports those entries as "probably fake"?

Your scenario isn't possible. All of those registrations still have to be verified by the state before anybody can vote with them. ACORN is not involved with verification.

Even the suggestion that ACORN would or could be involved in such a complex, many tentacled conspiracy is highly farfetched and silly, especially for a scheme which would still have no chance to actually affect an election.

And thereby affect the vote totals by as much as three votes. How big a conspiracy would it take to affect the total by one thousand? A conspiracy that goes off without a hitch, and isn't ratted out? A rat-out that has at least an even chance of bringing the rat beacoup ching-ching? And thats only going to work if the actual vote is close enough for it to be effective, how the hell are they going to know that in advance?

You think ACORN is rich and powerful? No, they are idealistic liberal lefties with second-hand cars and cheap suits. The damned fools ain't in it for the money. Plus, as you know, they have legal sharks circling trying to charge them with jaywalking with a voter registration form in their pocket, how far do you think an actual conspiracy would get, given the conditions under which they operate?

Do you actually believe this line of drivel, or do you simply imagine we are so stupid that we will?

OK, then. ACORN has no problems at all. I'm sure they'll get along just fine.

gonzomax
09-27-2009, 07:01 PM
Bricker has started threads against ACORN and piled on every time he could. He is always guilty of trying to make a fire when there is no kindling. ACORN is an organization that employed poor people . It gave them a little help with a job. They did Americas work ,by registering voters. They have done a very good job if the right wing bitching is any indication. There is so much manufactured outrage by the Bricker types, that they are too bigoted against them to realize how far off they are. Trying to claim that a couple people turning in phony registrations(that never voted) is some kind of huge problem, is a joke. The right is embarrassing themselves, but the blinders keep them from seeing it. ACORN is not a problem. It never has been.

elucidator
09-27-2009, 07:07 PM
....OK, then. ACORN has no problems at all. I'm sure they'll get along just fine.

Oh, they do indeed have problems. One of those problems is people like you, who offer utterly crapulous conspiracy theories with a straight face. Here's a hint: if you have to pull shit like that to support your cause, you got the wrong cause.

dropzone
09-27-2009, 07:32 PM
Bricker, please join me. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11603638#post11603638)

Snowboarder Bo
09-27-2009, 09:29 PM
I'm not sure what this means. ACORN obviously has a huge publicity problem right now. You seem to be saying that the facts don't support this kind of response. I disagree, but regardless fo which of us is right, it's beyond cavil that the publicity problem exists. ACORN has to do something to manage its response, and in my opinion, taking your approach of denying that a real problem exists and doing nothing at all except for repeating the denial will not be a productive response.

And yet you, and others firmly on the right wing crazy side, firmly believe that your approach of just making shit up and repeating it ad infinitum is a productive thing to do.

:dubious:

yorick73
09-28-2009, 11:54 AM
No, you are. ACORN does not have magical powers enabling them to tell how the people they register will vote. They register poor people and minorities. How those people vote is not determined or manipulated by ACORN.

So, without asking people how they will vote, what would be the easiest way to get large numbers of potential democrats registered? By signing up the urban poor in the inner city. Just curious...do you think the republicans don't want minorities to be registered to vote because they are racists? What about all the conservative minorities that would be left out due to this Republican mindset. Don't you think the Republicans would try to get every conservative registered regardless of race?



ACORN is a non-partisan organization. They do not impose any partisan test for registration.

I don't claim that they do. If you want to register potential voters of a particular party you don't have to be very bright to know where to find them.

ACORN is an umbrella organization. It has political arms and, presumably, non-partisan arms. The problem appears to be that there are no firewalls between these entities. The real scandal may be money that was moved between different arms of the organization.

Lightnin'
09-28-2009, 12:01 PM
ACORN is an umbrella organization. It has political arms and, presumably, non-partisan arms. The problem appears to be that there are no firewalls between these entities. The real scandal may be money that was moved between different arms of the organization.

(Emphasis mine)

Once again, no specific allegations, just "this could happen". Do you see why was have a problem with this?

elucidator
09-28-2009, 12:04 PM
"OK, turns out there isn't much of a scandal here. But there may be one over there! Really, we just don't know with a scandal-ridden entity like this..."

jayjay
09-28-2009, 12:24 PM
So, without asking people how they will vote, what would be the easiest way to get large numbers of potential democrats registered? By signing up the urban poor in the inner city. Just curious...do you think the republicans don't want minorities to be registered to vote because they are racists? What about all the conservative minorities that would be left out due to this Republican mindset. Don't you think the Republicans would try to get every conservative registered regardless of race?

I think the point here is that the political predilection of the people that ACORN registers is irrelevant to the situation. There are no laws saying that you cannot register large numbers of a particular party. There is no point of ethics that demands a parity in party registration.

If conservatives don't like ACORN signing up so many potential Democrats, they're welcome to set up their tables at the local Wal-Mart or at the local Gas 'n' Go. And, believe it or not, I seriously doubt that ACORN or the Democratic Party would try to smear them for it. After all, we're not the party that thrives through voter suppression.

Gyrate
09-28-2009, 12:24 PM
What I want to know is why ACORN aren't addressing the story that one of their former employees raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. I can't remember the employee's name - Glenn something - but if true it is a genuine outrage.

yorick73
09-28-2009, 12:26 PM
(Emphasis mine)

Once again, no specific allegations, just "this could happen". Do you see why was have a problem with this?


No, you are wrong. These are not just ideas or random speculation. The finance committee is actively looking into whether federal money for the tax-exempt arms is being used by the political arms of ACORN. Here is a recent report produced by the finance committe tax staff that may be starting to untangle the web:

http://finance.senate.gov/press/Gpress/2009/prg092409d.pdf

yorick73
09-28-2009, 12:32 PM
I think the point here is that the political predilection of the people that ACORN registers is irrelevant to the situation. There are no laws saying that you cannot register large numbers of a particular party. There is no point of ethics that demands a parity in party registration.

If conservatives don't like ACORN signing up so many potential Democrats, they're welcome to set up their tables at the local Wal-Mart or at the local Gas 'n' Go. And, believe it or not, I seriously doubt that ACORN or the Democratic Party would try to smear them for it. After all, we're not the party that thrives through voter suppression.

I think you have missed the point. The point I was making is that either party will go after any organization that MAY be corrupt and IS benefitting the opposing party. This is common sense. The Republicans are not trying to dismantle ACORN because they register Dems. But, they WILL jump on the organization at the first sign of any wrongdoing.

Diogenes the Cynic
09-28-2009, 12:34 PM
What web?

Diogenes the Cynic
09-28-2009, 12:35 PM
ACORN does not register Dems, it registers poor people. How those people vote is of no consequence to ACORN.

jayjay
09-28-2009, 12:42 PM
The Republicans are not trying to dismantle ACORN because they register Dems. But, they WILL jump on the organization at the first sign of any wrongdoing.

Or, you know, fake up wrongdoing and get it out there under "Some people say" cover.

And your naivete surprises me. The Republicans very much are trying to dismantle ACORN because they register Dems. If ACORN were somehow causing all those poor people to vote Republican, the Republicans would be taking bullets for them.

Euphonious Polemic
09-28-2009, 12:43 PM
What I want to know is why ACORN aren't addressing the story that one of their former employees raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. I can't remember the employee's name - Glenn something - but if true it is a genuine outrage.

Indeed. This Glenn Beck character obviously has a huge publicity problem right now, with the accusations that he raped and killed a young girl in 1990. I disagree, but regardless, it's beyond cavil that the publicity problem exists. Glenn Beck has to do something to manage his response, and in my opinion, taking the approach of denying that a real problem exists and doing nothing at all except for repeating the denial will not be a productive response.

elucidator
09-28-2009, 12:46 PM
Indeed, it might even cause such claims to be repeated again and again, that he raped and murdered a young girl in 1990.

gonzomax
09-28-2009, 12:50 PM
The people who set up ACORN are getting sued. They are not allowed to film people without their permission.
ACORN does not know what party affiliation the people they are registering . You are not allowed to discuss it at all. There are more democrats than republicans. More poor people are unregistered than the better off. Therefore registering is more easily done in poorer neighborhoods. And ACORN will turn in more registrations if they focus on poorer neighborhoods.
Who can honestly say if they were contracted to register voters, they would spend their time registering in wealthy areas? You would not turn in enough registrations to justify the cost.

elucidator
09-28-2009, 12:50 PM
And this just in....

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/28/huckabee-un-acorn/

Huckabee: Let The United Nations, The ‘International Equivalent Of ACORN,’ Float Into The East River

Judge them by their enemies.

cosmosdan
09-28-2009, 12:54 PM
And this just in....

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/28/huckabee-un-acorn/

Huckabee: Let The United Nations, The ‘International Equivalent Of ACORN,’ Float Into The East River

Judge them by their enemies.

Holy Fuck. I kinda liked Huckabee but this. I wouldn't be surprised by serious problems with the UN but how the hell can we exist in a modern world without making efforts to communicate, reach agreements, and strive to solve problems with the nations we share the planet with.

elucidator
09-28-2009, 01:01 PM
....The Republicans are not trying to dismantle ACORN because they register Dems. But, they WILL jump on the organization at the first sign of any wrongdoing.

Is this, by any chance, the same party that tried to use the law enforcement power of the Justice Department to sway elections? You remember, don't you? About firing US Attorneys that wouldn't use the power of their office to attack political enemies?

Or maybe the better question would be: are you kidding?

Gyrate
09-28-2009, 01:01 PM
ACORN does not register Dems, it registers poor people. How those people vote is of no consequence to ACORN.Of course, if the Republicans wanted ACORN to register more Republicans, the logical thing to do would be to develop more policies which appeal to poor and minority voters.

Of course, they might also just as likely fund a study into the military applications of airborne swine.

Euphonious Polemic
09-28-2009, 01:09 PM
Holy Fuck. I kinda liked Huckabee but this. I wouldn't be surprised by serious problems with the UN but how the hell can we exist in a modern world without making efforts to communicate, reach agreements, and strive to solve problems with the nations we share the planet with.

What are you, some kind of Frenchie loving socialist? Or a freakin interlectual?

Lightnin'
09-28-2009, 01:27 PM
No, you are wrong. These are not just ideas or random speculation. The finance committee is actively looking into whether federal money for the tax-exempt arms is being used by the political arms of ACORN. Here is a recent report produced by the finance committe tax staff that may be starting to untangle the web:

http://finance.senate.gov/press/Gpress/2009/prg092409d.pdf

Investigate, sure. I believe that any entity which receives public funds should be put under the microscope every so often- keeps 'em honest.

However, there's a difference between an investigation and a witch hunt- and it's a witch hunt we're seeing with ACORN right now. The Right has been looking for something, anything, with which to destroy ACORN. And what's more, you guys are proud of it.

How proud do you think you'd be if it was one of your pet organizations that was being so threatened?

And you know what's really funny? I don't give a damn about ACORN. I'd never heard of them at all until two months before the election. I just have a feeling that the Right's hard on for ACORN investigation might not be for the right reasons, you know?

yorick73
09-28-2009, 02:18 PM
Investigate, sure. I believe that any entity which receives public funds should be put under the microscope every so often- keeps 'em honest.

However, there's a difference between an investigation and a witch hunt- and it's a witch hunt we're seeing with ACORN right now. The Right has been looking for something, anything, with which to destroy ACORN. And what's more, you guys are proud of it.

How proud do you think you'd be if it was one of your pet organizations that was being so threatened?

And you know what's really funny? I don't give a damn about ACORN. I'd never heard of them at all until two months before the election. I just have a feeling that the Right's hard on for ACORN investigation might not be for the right reasons, you know?

This is no witch hunt. ACORN workers were shown to have turned in falsified voter registrations and dumped them a short time before the deadline.

Dale Rathke embezzled $1M which was covered up by ACORN executives.

ACORN workers seem willing to help people hide income from the IRS and help a pimp and hooker set up a brothel.

The Senate Finance Committee report definitely suggests that money from the tax-exempt arms of ACORN is being used by the political arms.

The wrongdoing of the individual workers does not necessarily mean that ACORN as a whole is at fault. But the workers wrongdoing, along with potential wrongdoing by ACORN, suggests that the organization should be investigated if they want to continue to receive tax dollars. They can do whatever they want to do, just don't use tax money.

yorick73
09-28-2009, 02:23 PM
Or, you know, fake up wrongdoing and get it out there under "Some people say" cover.

And your naivete surprises me. The Republicans very much are trying to dismantle ACORN because they register Dems. If ACORN were somehow causing all those poor people to vote Republican, the Republicans would be taking bullets for them.

Did you bother to read the rest of my post?

Diogenes the Cynic
09-28-2009, 02:42 PM
The rest of your post was just more of the same debunked and/or meaningless horseshit. None of it contains a shred of wrongdoing or corruption by ACORN as an organization.

You guys would have more credibility if you showed even a morsel of concern for the very real, long term kinds of fraud committed by defense contractors.

Conservatives are afraid of ACORN because it registers black people to vote. It's just that simple. There is nothing more to it.

Lightnin'
09-28-2009, 02:50 PM
This is no witch hunt. ACORN workers were shown to have turned in falsified voter registrations and dumped them a short time before the deadline.

Except we've got this thread right here. ACORN was required to submit all voter registrations they received- it would have been illegal for them not to have.

Dale Rathke embezzled $1M which was covered up by ACORN executives.

Except ACORN was the company he embezzled from. ACORN was the victim. Maybe they didn't handle it as well as they should have- but they were still the victim.

ACORN workers seem willing to help people hide income from the IRS and help a pimp and hooker set up a brothel.

Except we've never seen the full, unedited tape. The tape which, by the way, was apparently recorded illegally. And the tape alleges that the ACORN worker killed her husband- the husband which is actually alive. And the worker reported the "pimp" to the police.

The Senate Finance Committee report definitely suggests that money from the tax-exempt arms of ACORN is being used by the political arms.

Except that's not exactly been verified, has it? And how can something be "definitely suggested"?

The wrongdoing of the individual workers does not necessarily mean that ACORN as a whole is at fault. But the workers wrongdoing, along with potential wrongdoing by ACORN, suggests that the organization should be investigated if they want to continue to receive tax dollars. They can do whatever they want to do, just don't use tax money.

That's a hell of a lot of supposition and spin, don't you think? We've got far more on, say, Blackwater... and they aren't being subjected to the same investigation. Why has ACORN been singled out?

cosmosdan
09-28-2009, 02:54 PM
This is no witch hunt. ACORN workers were shown to have turned in falsified voter registrations and dumped them a short time before the deadline.

Dale Rathke embezzled $1M which was covered up by ACORN executives.

ACORN workers seem willing to help people hide income from the IRS and help a pimp and hooker set up a brothel.

The Senate Finance Committee report definitely suggests that money from the tax-exempt arms of ACORN is being used by the political arms.

The wrongdoing of the individual workers does not necessarily mean that ACORN as a whole is at fault. But the workers wrongdoing, along with potential wrongdoing by ACORN, suggests that the organization should be investigated if they want to continue to receive tax dollars. They can do whatever they want to do, just don't use tax money.

The thing that gets me with all the noise about this is that almost any even somewhat large organization there will be problems and bad apples. Look at what actually happens in reality during elections. Most Republicans are screaming about ACORN before and after the election to damage Obama, not because they are truly think there's a serious problem.

Any organization requires oversight and regular maintainence as the bad apples are weeded out. That's just a fact of life among humans. Why is this story getting so much press and an inordinate amount of righteous outrage? It's political pure and simple. There is no indication of widespread corruption and the amount of money set aside for them by federal programs is not all that significant. Want to save millions , possibly billions and correct some real injustice? Let's investigate the contractors in the middle east. Can I get an Amen from the GOP? No!? Gee Whiz!

Nars Glinley
09-28-2009, 03:49 PM
Any organization requires oversight and regular maintainence as the bad apples are weeded out. That's just a fact of life among humans. Why is this story getting so much press and an inordinate amount of righteous outrage? It's political pure and simple. There is no indication of widespread corruption and the amount of money set aside for them by federal programs is not all that significant. Want to save millions , possibly billions and correct some real injustice? Let's investigate the contractors in the middle east. Can I get an Amen from the GOP? No!? Gee Whiz!

I, for one, would love to see an investigation of contractors in the middle east. Why aren't the Democrats doing it?

ElvisL1ves
09-28-2009, 04:00 PM
Conservatives are afraid of ACORN because it registers black people to vote. It's just that simple. There is nothing more to it.
I think that's too much of a leap. ACORN registers people who are likely to vote Democratic. That available pool is disproportionately brown and poor and young, true. The volume of available unregistereds who are likely to vote Republican is far smaller, and has largely been tapped by their own drives among the evangelical community over the last decade or two.

What they fear, and therefore hate, is the loss of power that having more people vote would entail. There is no doubt a racial element to that fear for many of them, sure, but it's only necessary to do an easy and cold political calculation to explain why ACORN, and for that matter any attempt to get opposing-party voters to the polls, has to be discredited and stopped.

Euphonious Polemic
09-28-2009, 04:48 PM
That's a hell of a lot of supposition and spin, don't you think? We've got far more on, say, Blackwater... and they aren't being subjected to the same investigation. Why has ACORN been singled out?


Oh, Oh, I know this one!

Blackwater is not being investigated because when their employee commit minor crimes like shooting 17 innocent people to death, they are given an immunity deal. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3795318&page=1)

cosmosdan
09-28-2009, 04:55 PM
I, for one, would love to see an investigation of contractors in the middle east. Why aren't the Democrats doing it?

We have a daily calender at work that is sayings and signs that have a ridiculous element or really bad grammar.

One recent one was a testimony of a a contractor who was being accused of war profiteering. He said something close to;

"The contract was to provide trucks and we provided the trucks. Whether or not they were operational is immaterial"


At that point a large Marine Colonel should have throttled the SOB and screamed "People are dieing over here asshole"

elucidator
09-28-2009, 04:56 PM
...shooting 17 innocent people to death, they are given an immunity deal.

It's moments like this when I most regret that we don't have a "puking my guts out" smiley.

yorick73
09-28-2009, 04:59 PM
Conservatives are afraid of ACORN because it registers black people to vote. It's just that simple. There is nothing more to it.

Cite? You are so quick to dismiss all evidence against ACORN but so willing to accuse all conservatives of being racists without any evidence. Usually the ones who are willing to throw the RAAACIST accusation around so easily are the true racists (IMHO).

elucidator
09-28-2009, 05:08 PM
Well, in a way, you have a point. The very people who labored so hard to turn the Justice Dept into a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican National Committee are the very same people who are so anxious to see ACORN brought down. Yes, truly, hypocrisy is rife! Good catch!

cosmosdan
09-28-2009, 05:10 PM
I, for one, would love to see an investigation of contractors in the middle east. Why aren't the Democrats doing it?

Oh, and sadly, I suspect part of the treason there are no investigations and/or prosecutions is that too many Dem connections would also have to take the fall. That, IMO is one of the BS double standards that is hurting us all.

yorick73
09-28-2009, 05:34 PM
That's a hell of a lot of supposition and spin, don't you think? We've got far more on, say, Blackwater... and they aren't being subjected to the same investigation. Why has ACORN been singled out?

How much do you need to convince you that they should at least be investigated IF they want to continue getting taxpayer money?!?

As far as other organizations, including Blackwater, investigate away. Dems control the House, Senate, and Presidency right now. Where are the investigations? Oh, I bet they won't be as much fun since Bush is gone.

Diogenes the Cynic
09-28-2009, 05:50 PM
Cite? You are so quick to dismiss all evidence against ACORN
Evidence of what?
but so willing to accuse all conservatives of being racists without any evidence. Usually the ones who are willing to throw the RAAACIST accusation around so easily are the true racists (IMHO).
I didn't accuse anyone of being racist, I just said conservatives don't like ACORN registering black people to vote. That bothers them not because they're racist, but because black people vote for the Democrats.

Diogenes the Cynic
09-28-2009, 05:53 PM
How much do you need to convince you that they should at least be investigated IF they want to continue getting taxpayer money?!?
Investigated for what?
As far as other organizations, including Blackwater, investigate away. Dems control the House, Senate, and Presidency right now. Where are the investigations? Oh, I bet they won't be as much fun since Bush is gone.
Bush gave Blackwater immunity from investigation.

The other organizations have already been investigated and found guilty of a great deal of fraud. I posted the list upthread. They still go on receiving taxpayer money regardless and without a peep of concern from the poitical right.

gonzomax
09-28-2009, 09:39 PM
The witch hunt is not racist. it is classist. The people ACORN registered were poor people and incidentlaly mostly black. There would be no noise if they were middle class republicans registered. But the repubs were getting hurt so they tried everything they could think of to take ACORN down. Stupid crap that only Bricker would bleat about was tried but it had nothing behind it and failed. Then they get these kids to try a gotcha . It is a stupid farce but enough for them to take and run with. It does not say a thing about the organization at all. A couple employees playing along with obvious middle class geeks role playing is a joke. But constant coverage and endless crying succeeded where no other tactic worked. I hope those 2 get sued out of their shorts.

Lightnin'
09-28-2009, 10:53 PM
How much do you need to convince you that they should at least be investigated IF they want to continue getting taxpayer money?!?


Investigate, sure. I believe that any entity which receives public funds should be put under the microscope every so often- keeps 'em honest.

Why is it that ACORN is a grave threat against Democracy, but Republican sweethearts like, say, Blackwater, get sweetheart immunity deals? Why is ACORN so dangerous when Republican organizations actively destroy Democrat voter responses and surreptitiously switch Dem voters to Pub?

cosmosdan
09-29-2009, 09:19 AM
Originally Posted by yorick73
How much do you need to convince you that they should at least be investigated IF they want to continue getting taxpayer money?!?

According to former US attorney David Iglesias (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/28/david-iglesias-joins-madd_n_302433.html) they've already been investigated.

I believed there to be prosecutable cases, but I wasn't going to make up evidence. And at the end of two years I couldn't find one case I could prosecute.

Karl Rove called to push for his dismissal because he refused to provide the prosecutions they wanted. Are you outraged about that?

cosmosdan
09-29-2009, 09:37 AM
What are you, some kind of Frenchie loving socialist? Or a freakin interlectual?

No I'm a fuckin Amurican! I was born and Amurican and I,......{sniff} ........really,....{SNIFF} ,................love, .........{heavy sobbing}


gimme a minute

gonzomax
09-29-2009, 11:10 AM
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/politics/142841/could_the_righties%27_hatred_of_acorn_take_down_the_entire_military-industrial-media_complex/
Some good may come from this . The ACORN legislation is written so broadly that it could take military contractors who cheat the government down. It could get the banks who cheated TARP too. There are 20 banks criminal cases involving banks now. Blackwater could get cut off for the same reasons. Halliburton and Iraqi contractors have systematically looted the taxpayers. They could go down .

I kid. They will rewrite the legislation to exempt them.

Squink
12-08-2009, 09:20 AM
FAKERY: (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/acorn_report_finds_no_illegal_conduct.php?ref=fpblg)The videos that have been released appear to have been edited, in some cases substantially, including the insertion of a substitute voiceover for significant portions of Mr. O'Keefe's and Ms. Giles's comments, which makes it difficult to determine the questions to which ACORN employees are responding. A comparison of the publicly available transcripts to the released videos confirms that large portions of the original video have been omitted from the released versions.

Bricker
12-08-2009, 09:30 AM
FAKERY: (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/acorn_report_finds_no_illegal_conduct.php?ref=fpblg)

"A comparison of the publicly available transcripts to the released videos confirms that large portions of the original video have been omitted from the released versions."

What does this mean? The fakers were so inept that they published transcripts that didn't match the faked voiceovers? That seems... not credible as a statement.

What were the specific differences? What did the transcripts say as opposed to what the videos said?

Squink
12-08-2009, 09:45 AM
Good questions, Bricker.
Maybe the answers'll come out one of these days, though I don't think any of us should hold our breath waiting for them.

amarinth
12-08-2009, 10:14 AM
"A comparison of the publicly available transcripts to the released videos confirms that large portions of the original video have been omitted from the released versions."

What does this mean? The fakers were so inept that they published transcripts that didn't match the faked voiceovers? That seems... not credible as a statement.

What were the specific differences? What did the transcripts say as opposed to what the videos said?Appendix D of the linked report lists what the investigators found at the various offices that . Among the statements areAlthough Mr. O’Keefe appeared in all videos dressed as a pimp, in
fact, when he appeared at each and every office, he was dressed like a college student – in slacks
and a button down shirt. Ms. Giles, however, was dressed as she appears in the videos.
While no video of this visit was released, some of the released videos contain scenes of the sign of the Philadelphia ACORN office and shots of Philadelphia’s head organizer with no audio. In San Diego, the ACORN employee who met with the videographers does not speak English as his first language. His colleagues usually converse with him in Spanish. In the released video, his participation amounts mostly to nodding or saying “OK.” It is difficult to determine what this employee is responding to because the videographers statements are obscured by a voiceover inserted later.

Diogenes the Cynic
12-08-2009, 10:17 AM
It was pretty obvious those videos had been doctored from the get go.

Bricker
12-08-2009, 10:20 AM
Appendix D of the linked report lists what the investigators found at the various offices that . Among the statements are

OK.

None of those statements seem to touch on the portions of the videos that garnered the most concern, though. And it's unclear to me how they changed the image of O'Keefe from "pimp outfit" to "college student" on the video. Are they saying that some kind of digital alteration was done, a la Forrest Gump?

Diogenes the Cynic
12-08-2009, 10:36 AM
Since the scammers who concocted these videos have refused to provide any of the full, unedited, original videos to anyone (it wouldn't surprise me if they've destroyed them), then any obvious tampering discredits the entire thing. It's disingenuous to to say the clearly tampered parts "don't seem to touch on the portions of the videos that garnered the most concern." Yes they do. It's the same video. The provenance is tainted beyond any redemption, absent the ability to see the original.

amarinth
12-08-2009, 10:42 AM
OK.

None of those statements seem to touch on the portions of the videos that garnered the most concern, though. And it's unclear to me how they changed the image of O'Keefe from "pimp outfit" to "college student" on the video. Are they saying that some kind of digital alteration was done, a la Forrest Gump?That's what I'm gathering from the report, that there was digital alteration, that there were edits, and that there were voice overs. Basically the videos are unreliable as to which questions elicited which answers and how. There's enough obvious editing that it's hard to say whether the released video is representative of the actual conversations that took place or a distortion of those conversations.

The report doesn't let ACORN off the hook; it clearly states there are systemic problems in the organization and there is a need for extreme changes throughout. But that doesn't make the videos good.

whorfin
12-08-2009, 10:57 AM
OK.

None of those statements seem to touch on the portions of the videos that garnered the most concern, though. And it's unclear to me how they changed the image of O'Keefe from "pimp outfit" to "college student" on the video. Are they saying that some kind of digital alteration was done, a la Forrest Gump?

Nothing that complicated. Look at the start of this video, at about 0.18-0.20. (apologies for posting the odious things)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UOL9Jh61S8&feature=related

What do you see? A man in a shirt and slacks (who looks an awful lot like O'keefe), and a woman in revealing clothing (looking a lot like Giles) walking into a office. Pimp outfit? No.

Then, at about 1.15, you see O'keefe, in a pimp outfit, near a car--and then walking down a street. with giles in her outfit ACORN office? No.

It seems pretty obvious what happened--O'keefe goes into an ACORN office in shirt and slacks, and then comes out, shoots a couple of scenes nearby in the "pimp outfit," and claims he was wearing it all along. Not even high-grade bullshit.

The scene of him walking into an office dressed as a college student seems pretty conclusive. If you don't think that's enough, the absolute lack of any video where you see both (1) pimp outfit, and (2) ACORN office at the same time is to me, damning--I just don't see any proof at all he was in the "pimp outfit" in the ACORN offices, and the sequence at the start of the video seems to clearly show he went to at least one office dressed as a college student.

Add to that the fact that O'keefe edited in scenes later to make it look like he was dressed in the "pimp outfit" all along, and what you have is a good reason to doubt anything they say. As Amarinth says, this doesn't mean the ACORN workers were perfect, or did the right thing--but it leads me to call bullshit on O'Keefe's account.

To put it another way, I'd second what Diogenes says--I have trouble believing anything these guys say, given the evidence that something has been tampered with or misrepresented in the videos---the whole point of tampering with the video is to conceal what actually happened. It's not just that you can only identify some questionable parts--but that the fact that such tampering exists makes me skeptical of the accuracy of the remainder as accurate reflections of what went on in the offices. That's the point of the selective editing.

If ACORN is really as bad as they say, it'll come out in the unedited video---and I couldn't imagine any reason for them not to release it. On the other hand, if ACORN was made to look worse through manipulation of the video and editing, there is a very good reason not to release the whole thing. Given that O'keefe and company have strenuously refused to show the full, unedited video, and given that the editing on the released videos is questionable at best, I can only infer that there is something on the unedited videos that repudiates their story.

dropzone
12-08-2009, 01:06 PM
"A comparison of the publicly available transcripts to the released videos confirms that large portions of the original video have been omitted from the released versions."

What does this mean? The fakers were so inept that they published transcripts that didn't match the faked voiceovers? That seems... not credible as a statement.Really? Everything else they did was pretty inept.

Lobohan
12-08-2009, 01:38 PM
We should also mention that even if the whole video were true it would still be like two fry cooks smoking crystal meth in the walk in freezer at McDonalds. What exactly does that have to do with overarching McDonalds policy and election fraud again?

That two employees may have, maybe, said (not done) something shady isn't a sign that the organization is corrupt. It's not like ACORN has a directive telling its employees to assist in prostitution.

flickster
12-08-2009, 03:27 PM
We should also mention that even if the whole video were true it would still be like two fry cooks smoking crystal meth in the walk in freezer at McDonalds. What exactly does that have to do with overarching McDonalds policy and election fraud again?

That two employees may have, maybe, said (not done) something shady isn't a sign that the organization is corrupt. It's not like ACORN has a directive telling its employees to assist in prostitution.

You're slightly off base.....The equivalent would be if the fry cooks were instructing customers how to sell meth from the walk-in freezer.

Lobohan
12-08-2009, 03:39 PM
You're slightly off base.....The equivalent would be if the fry cooks were instructing customers how to sell meth from the walk-in freezer.Not in the least.

1st: The people involved weren't following ACORN's directives.
2nd: The tape's veracity is in question, so #1 may not even be an issue.

It isn't by any sane reasoning the equivalent of a business using its facilities for a crime. I'm sure you really, really want this to be sinister, but c'mon (http://yfrog.com/2tconservatardoutragedispj).

elucidator
12-08-2009, 04:10 PM
An expensive lesson learned. Costly, the ACORN name is totally smirched, when the Forces of Darkness set out to besmirch, they have no rivals, they have a gift for lying like a nightingale for singing.

But they taught us something very important. At first, I had trouble figuring it out, having some experience with ACORN. Why were they so anxious and eager to bring down these feckless idealists who drive used Volvos and wear Goodwill suits?

Because they were effective. Because the Tom Joad/Saul Alinsky, old fashioned neighborhood by neighborhood method works. The other guys were feeling the pain of accumulated organizing, a little here, a little there. "Don't agonize, organize." Amen, brother.

Don't waste time trying to lead the people, empower the people, and they will lead themselves. No, they are not all that educated, but a lot more than they used to be. It doesn't matter, the important things we have to say don't require subtle and complex analysis. The Dark Side doesn't rely on subtlety, they tell big, bald lies. Why wouldn't big, bald truths work as well? Don't try to lead the people, empower them and get out of their way.

The Tighty Righties went after ACORN because they were feeling the hurt, the paltry few thousands that ACORN scored in every district was being felt in the close races. Why go after such puny targets as ACORN? Because ACORN was making them bleed.

The expensive lesson can be a big gift if you pay attention. The slogging, door to door, one on one, tiresome, boring approach works. Sorry, Mr. Alinsky. Mr Alinsky, sir! You were right and it took our enemies to teach us so. Now, if you'll excuse, I got a CD of Woody Guthrie tunes it would do me some good to listen to....

flickster
12-08-2009, 04:31 PM
Not in the least.

1st: The people involved weren't following ACORN's directives.
They were performing services as ACORN representatives

2nd: The tape's veracity is in question, so #1 may not even be an issue.
To which of the tapes are you referring? I think it evident that there was an oft repeated pattern of conduct. But in true liberal fashion, shoot the messenger - care not about the message

Now the latest news....ACORN performs it's own internal audit and wants the controllers of additional government funding to believe they now have credibility.....:rolleyes:

hotflungwok
12-08-2009, 06:03 PM
To which of the tapes are you referring? I think it evident that there was an oft repeated pattern of conduct. But in true liberal fashion, shoot the messenger - care not about the message
Um, did you miss the whole 'The videos are doctored bullshit' memo? Cuz if you did, then it needs to be said again: the videos are doctored bullshit. The only repeated pattern of conduct here was the right wing smear campaign at work trying to destroy something they hate.

Now the latest news....ACORN performs it's own internal audit and wants the controllers of additional government funding to believe they now have credibility.....:rolleyes:
ACORN has only lost credibility because groups that don't like what they do have lied about them. In other words, they've only lost credibility to those who believe the lies.

Lobohan
12-08-2009, 06:11 PM
They were performing services as ACORN representativesAgain, because you seem to be too blinded by ideological fury to think clearly, the workers, if they did something wrong weren't doing what ACORN hired them to do. You are swinging at illusions because you desperately want there to be some substance to them. It's kida sad.

To which of the tapes are you referring? I think it evident that there was an oft repeated pattern of conduct.Show me. As I recall, the conservative filmmaker went from ACORN office to ACORN office trying to find something to scream "Gotcha!" about.

But in true liberal fashion, shoot the messenger - care not about the messageIs that true liberal fashion? Is it true conservative fashion to whine like a child about phantoms and made-up controversies? Is that the game we're playing? There are smart conservatives. But this isn't a cause that resonates with them, because the evidence isn't there. Only irrational ideologues are beating this drum.

Now the latest news....ACORN performs it's own internal audit and wants the controllers of additional government funding to believe they now have credibility.....:rolleyes:Show me how other similar organizations perform their audits and what the relevant laws and regulations are. Or retract that statement as unfounded. Kay?

tnetennba
12-08-2009, 09:58 PM
"A comparison of the publicly available transcripts to the released videos confirms that large portions of the original video have been omitted from the released versions."

What does this mean? The fakers were so inept that they published transcripts that didn't match the faked voiceovers? That seems... not credible as a statement.

What were the specific differences? What did the transcripts say as opposed to what the videos said?

To answer your real questions: Yes, you should continue to believe them even though they are proven to be false, because it is politically expedient for you to do so.