Wait…how is this voter registration fraud, again?
I reproduce Richard Parker’s citation to the law below. What part of this indicates “fraud” on the part of ACORN?
(I’ve reposted this after the flip because I don’t want Bricker to overlook it.)
I can’t decide if it’s stupidity with you, or something more malevolent.
-
I never saw the post. And your evidence to the contrary is that I must have seen it, because I posted later in the thread. Not that I quoted it, refererred to it in any way, hinted at it, joked about it, or anything except that after it was posted, I posted. Genius. I suppose you’re willing to hold yourself to that same rule? You agree you’ve read every post in every thread subsequent to a post of yours? Really?
-
Even if I had seen the post, I don’t agree I was wrong. I didn’t say Scalia was not an originalist, did I? Discussing the particular decision process, I said he was using the principles of textualism. The two schools are not mutally exclusive.
So: I don’t even concede that I said anything wrong there at all. Even if I had seen your moronic little pair of posts, it would not have moved me to admit error that doesn’t exist.
Then you probably should have said, “James O’Keefe is still full of shit, but apparently the other anti-ACORN types were not”.
I didn’t mention O’Keefe and he was not remotely the only right-winger to excoriate ACORN.
Or did you support ACORN’s position and I missed it? My apologies.
Me, by dint of quoting and agreeing with Bryan Ekers. I’m just sayin’.
Thanks!
Now, you ask an interesting question.
Is this going to be one of those “Cite?” games or is it an honest question?
From here.
So part of the prosecution’s offer of proof would have been the fradulent voter registrations submitted. But a guilty plea does not admit each and every fact alleged by the prosecution; it just admits guilt to each element of the offense.
So I suppose you could argue that ACORN did not technically admit to voter registratgion fraud.
But I base my statement on the fact that ACORN submitted fraudulent voter registration forms.
Are you going to claim that ACORN didn’t do that?
Well, I’ll adopt that with a slight modification:
James O’Keefe is still full of shit, but those people that said ACORN violated election registration laws in Nevada were not.
Won’t make a difference, but I’ll happily say it.
I’d like to note that I also explicitly stated that ACORN is legally guilty of whatever the heck they were actually charged with in Nevada. But, to quote Boon in Animal House, “Forget it. He’s rolling.”
Whitepages.com has more than 3 pages of people actually named Tony Romo in Nevada, so I’m not entirely convinced by the Dallas Cowboys bit.
Well, unless they actually registered as “Tony Romo of the Dallas Cowboys”, which I doubt.
It makes a difference to me. Hug?
I said ACORN was getting a raw deal. I said they’ve done a good job when they did their internal review, and that the changes they proposed were sufficient.
The two areas I’ve argued hard against were: (1) the claim that Comgress’ action in defunding ACORN was illegal as a Bill of Attainder. People seemed to conflate that with the idea that I supported Congress’ defunding of ACORN. I did not. But it wasn’t illegal, and the argument that it was a Bill of Attainder was weak tea.
And (2) that ACORN did nothing illegal.
Bricker, would you say that your law firm has done nothing wrong?
Um…wait, what? ACORN pled guilty to paying people on the basis of number of voter registration forms submitted. That is the act that is illegal under the Nevada law cited. The fact that falsified voter registration forms were submitted by workers hoping to increase their amount of payment may go to the consequences of paying workers per form submitted, but I honestly can’t see what relevance it has to the thing that ACORN actually pled guilty to.
To sum up: the law broken by ACORN prohibited the provision of compensation based on the total number of voters a worker registers. ACORN pled guilty to providing compensation based on the total number of voters a worker registered. ACORN did NOT plead guilty to, and did not commit, voter registration fraud.
In short, what the fuck are you talking about, and why are you conflating to completely distinct issues?
Okay then. If that is the case then I withdraw my assertion, with genuine apologies.
Still pissed about the Craig Kilborn thing though.
Are you claiming that there was listing for “Dallas Cowboy Tony Romo”, “Tony Romo of the Dallas Cowboys” or any variation thereof? As Really Not All That Bright has pointed out, there are three pages of Tony Romos in Navada. I wouldn’t mind see a listing of the other supposed fraudulent entries to see how supposedly uncommon they are.
Of course it’s possible for the registering employee to have found a guy named Tony Romo. The odds go down when the same registerant, paid a per-registration fee, claims to have found Tony Romo, Kevin Ogletree, Brandon Williams, and David Buehler.
Aw, I can never stay mad at you.
Seriously?
This doesn’t strike you as a bit desperate?
The news story says, “..and other members of the team.” The director pleaded guilty. The organization pleaded guilty.
But you need to reserve judgement to see what other team members names were used and decide only then?
So before I go hunt this down… this will do it for you? If I come back with the information that ACORN submitted registrations in Nevada from one worker for Tony Romo, Kevin Ogletree, Brandon Williams, and David Buehler, you’ll say… what?
(bolding mine)Are you saying those names were on the list?
Your position is rational, but it is not reasonable, it denies proportionality.
Reason demands more than simple rationality, reducing complex questions down to a yes/no duality. By the standards of rationality, the little girl who sells lemonade without a license is a criminal: there is a law, she did not obey the law, she is a criminal. That is rational, within the strict semantic bounds of the law. But it is not reasonable.
It is not law that is important, it is justice that is important, and the law is the handjob of justice.
I know what Doggyknees meant when he said ACORN did absolutley nothing wrong, he was exaggerating, provoked by exasperation. I know full well that he did not mean to suggest that ACORN walks in a nimbus of utter innocence that makes angels blush with shame. That is the reasonable intepretation of his words.
Rationality is the tool of the reasonable man, it is not his master.
A reasonable man might be led astray here, if he were unaware of the fine point of the law. He might fairly assume that since he is paying people to gather registrations, he might fairly offer some incentive, the princely sum of five whole dollars. Point of fact, he cannot, that is against the law.
Did he know it was against the law? I’ve seen nothing on that, so I’m going to guess that he didn’t. He likely didn’t think it was any more unreasonable than buying your Little League team a pizza to celebrate a victory. Now, this is a guess on my part, but absent contradictory evidence, I will let it stand.
But soft! There is a reasonable solution. Let Doggyknees admit to the heinous crime of hyperbole, exaggeration for the sake of rhetorical simplicity. We can then award Bricker this victory for his shrewd use of pettifoggery and semantics. I propose that we create a special award, and lay it humbly at his feet, he has no equal when it comes to the use of precision semantics in order to gain a trivial point.
I propose that, by popular acclaim, that Bricker is hereby awarded the special title and honorarium of Ninja of Nitpick!
What say you all?
When I practiced law, I worked for the public defender’s office.
I would not say that they never did anything wrong.
Yes, but those people weren’t named in the article you cited, and it didn’t say the same registrant found all of them, etc. Plus, some of the Cowboys probably actually live in Nevada. 
Really?
If he comes back to this thread and agrees that he was exaggerating, then I’m happy.
He won’t. He is quite sincere about his literal assertion being true.