No. As I said, I’ll withdraw an argument about “wrong,” but I won’t concede they did nothing wrong; I do think violating that set of laws is fairly described as wrong but recognize that reasonable people may disagree on the point.
“False?”
It’s exactly the same fucking situation, shithead. I made a post in the thread, he didn’t see it. How is that not exactly what you were talking about?
Will you concede that concede is spelled “concede”? 
So, to sum up :
ACORN pled guilty to improper compensation of registration workers. From this we **cannot **conclude that A.) ACORN did anything illegal, merely that they opted to pay the fine rather than fight the charge; B.) that ACORN did anything wrong, per se, even if they did actually commit the act in question.
Thus, the assertion Bricker is trying to refute, that ACORN “did absolutely nothing wrong”, even if one unreasonably lifts it out of its context and construes it as referring to all of ACORN’s conduct in the history of time itself - remains unrefuted.
So no matter how you look at it, the OP was pointless. Kudos!
Damn your Canadian fair voting practices!
You and I were in a direct back-and-forth discussion on a particular point. The posts were not even far apart in the thread.
You linked to a post directed at one poster and then suggest a completely different poster, not engaged with you on the linked post at all, must have seen it.
Not the same thing.
Seriously man, you need to stop digging when you’re in a hole.
CandidGamera: I dunno, I’m perfectly comfortable concluding (for all intents and purposes) that ACORN’s guilty plea means that they did, in fact, compensate registration workers in a manner violative of Nevada law. While it’s true that ACORN may well have opted to pay the fine despite being innocent of the charge simply to avoid the cost of further litigation, I certainly don’t think that’s the most likely or plausible scenario here.
Not that this is supportive whatsoever of any of Bricker’s larger points, of course.
So is it your contention that these organizations must have such strict screening processes so as to ensure that 100% of all registrants fill out their forms completely accurately? Do you believe that any false data that gets through is either the responsibility of the entity signing up the voter or, at the very least, that entity is complicit in the signer’s actions?
Finally, when you make the quoted statement, you’re talking from an ethical, not a legal, standpoint, correct?
Oh, you have no idea. Said this before, but I worked for a foundation that gave them money, met a lot of them. So sincere, they made my teeth hurt. So earnest and do-goody, made me want to drink.
But, truth be known, they embarrassed me. They were out there doing the hard work, the slogging, door to door misery of democracy. Smart ass elitist that I am, I sneered at their naiveté, thinking they were accomplishing something by nibbling at voter registration.
Turns out, they were right, and I was full of beans. The very fact of their persecution by the Republicans proves they were right, proves they were effective, proves that the Forces of Darkness can be frightened by earnest and sincere people with Goodwill suits, ratty old cars, and a determined idealism. They weren’t showy, they weren’t flashy, they simply worked, worked hard, and worked every day to make a difference.
Today, I light a stick of incense for the spirit of Saul Alinsky, and his insufferably sincere children. If evil men hate and fear you, you must have something going on. May the Goddess hold you close to Her bountiful bosom, now and forever, amen.
Grats, Bricker.
I’ll acknowledge that ACORN broke a single law, one time.
Are you happy now?
I’m not even sure if “lax” is appropriate here. Their procedures caught and flagged fraudulent registration forms. [That they were then required to submit 602.]
Had they followed Nevada law and paid people hourly they might still have had people filling out fraudulent forms [that they would have still been required to submit 603].
Their “procedure” was to pay people to go out and register voters, then flag the fraudulent forms. I’m not sure how much more could be done. Is this really the only time a fraudulent form has ever been submitted?
ETA I appear to be late again, feel free to ignore this post.
Bricker, in light of all that has been presented to you today, if you were given a chance to rewrite your title and original post, what would they say?
You’re not keeping up, Friend Bricker has abandoned all those false positions, and rests simply upon his central point, that Dio is a poopy-pants.
I rubbed elbows with them too, in a past life as a community organizer. I thought they were naive too. They’re the type that are always looking on the bright side, always assume that other people are good, and have cliched, inspirational quotes on their desks. I asked a guy once if he ever felt like he was wasting his time, if it was all futile and hopelessly optimistic. He pointed to a quote on his wall by Michael Jordan - “I can accept failure. I can’t accept not trying.”
That’s the kind of attitude that makes a cynic feel ashamed.
Your OP didn’t “suggest” anything, it blatantly stated it. You either didn’t know what was going on, or you deliberately misled people (which is what most people would call “lying”, by the way).
Good on you for admitting you lied, I guess.
A question I have asked several times in this thread:
What evidence would be necessary to convince you that they did violate the law?
DAMMIT stop being reasonable! It’s a lot easier to dis you when you’re just being a rabid partisan jerk.
No. I linked the a news article with that exact title. The article’s title was my hyperlink. How is that me blatantly stating it, when it’s clearly a link to an article with that exact name?
See, in all seriousness, though…
I don’t think I’m doing anything different.
Someone whose post I haven’t gotten to said something about “my larger points.”
The fact that ACORN did something illegal (and arguably wrong) is my larger point. I wasn’t trying to say that O’keefe was right, that they supported prostitution, or any of that crap. But I think when people see what looks like an attack on ACORN, they read all that into it.
Because you could have written something else to be the link. You chose not to, prolly because you were so damned gleeful at ACORN pleading guilty to anything. You did what you could, at the onset, to further the lie. In fact, you did what you could to further that lie until 6 pages of discussion had gone forth and multiple people had pointed out that the headline you consciously chose to copy and paste was, in fact, not true.
Either you read the article and knew it wasn’t true, or you didn’t read the article, and so you didn’t really know what you were so damned gleeful about, except that ACORN was guilty of something.
Given your history and intelligence, I’m going with “lied” rather than “was ignorant”.