No. They need to take reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of their efforts. I don’t hold them to any particular percentage – certainly not 100%. When they create a compensation that actually invites fraud, incentivizes fraud, that’s when I feel they can be considered responsible.
Yes, although a finder of fact could conclude that their conduct legally met the standard for conspiracy.
ACORN set up a system that rated performance on reaching a goal of 20 registration forms per shift. That is not a prescription for the workers to cheat. It is one that encourages them to work harder and achieve goals.
Are you suggesting we should get rid of setting goals because it encourages people to cheat? Are you also suggesting if a couple people cheat to get those goals the organization is guilty of fraud?
Your premise is wrong.
I cut and pasted the title of the article from the article.
I didn’t write anything. I linked to the story, using its title as the link. That’s completely standard practice.
I don’t think that anyone would agree that violating a law is automatically wrong. I think there are some that would argue that knowingly violating a law is wrong. Which I don’t think you have even attempted to prove that is what ACORN did. From what I gather, Nevada’s laws on this matter are a bit out of the mainstream, and I’ve seen no reason to believe that this wasn’t simply a mistake by Acorn. I don’t think anyone would argue that mistakenly violating a minor law is wrong.
I apologize for missing your previous post.
No, gonzomax, deciding that all goal-setting is bad because this method of goal-setting is bad would be “throwing out the baby with the bathwater.” This method of setting goals was bad. So bad, it was aginst the law. That doesn’t mean that other goal setting methods are also bad.
“They”? You have proof, then, that this was a matter of policy and not simply an action by one person?
The problem with arguing with you is that you often try to get more mileage out of insinuation that from fact. One is forced to counter nitpickery with nitpickery. Which is tiresome.
Obviously ACORN, or at least it’s Nevada Branch, did break the law, but it’s clearly a very minor infraction and was committed more out of stupidity than malice.
I’m not sure how this form of fraud would have benefitted the Democrats. Some ACORN workers turned in phony voter registration forms in order to get bonuses. However, unless someone voted in those people’s names, no candidate is given an advantage.
What I think was far more serious, and what led to ACORN’s downfall was when the founder’s brother embezzled a bunch of money and then top officials there tried to cover it up.
No worries. It’s the kind of thing that can happen to anyone, in a thread. I just don’t envy you the dressing-down that’s coming from Whack-a-Mole.
Well, as I understand it, the submitting official has to sign, when he accepts the blank forms from the clerk, that he understands the rules associated with collecting registrations. So it’s not just a matter of failing to look up the law; the law is staring you in the face when you accept the blank forms.
Could it still be a mistake?
Anything is possible, but a guilty plea admits that it wasn’t a mistake. So bascially we have only speculation that they made a mistake, against the signed notification and the guilty plea (and the general admonition that when you’re the executive director of ACORN Nevada you have some kind of duty to understand the laws governing your conduct in Nevada.)
I’m not so much helping you as making fun of Whack-a-Mole’s notion that the laws against fraud are an onerous burden that evil conservatives use to keep people from voting.
If you want to pretend that people in this thread are debating in good faith, and have any right to expect the same back - in the Pit - go ahead. I feel no such obligation.
Like I said, earlier, if this were a Republican organization, all the Usual Suspects would instantly flip-flop. This would be a huge deal, it would be put forward as absolute proof that Republicans are evil, and anyone who said they didn’t do anything wrong would be attacked continuously in every forum.
Stonewall, deny, dismiss, change the subject, attack the messenger. SOP.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes. Christopher Edwards’ statements implicating Amy Busefink and describing their policy.
So you knew it was false and you cut and pasted it anyway? Is that your excuse?
Or are you saying that you are incapable of, or don’t know how to, write some text and then make that text be a link?
ACORN was not a Democratic organization. It was non-partisan. If it was a partisan organization, it couldn’t have been funded. Any perceived “liberal” agenda on the aprt of ACORN is sheer, retard right wing fantasy.
You linked to an organization whose standard practice is to subvert the truth.
Technically speaking, you were required to post the title of their article, regardless of whether it was true or not.
By your own definitions in this thread that makes you responsible for their actions, due to your lax procedures. The least you could have done was to flag the title as being misleading.
They lied, so you lied.
Even worse, they get paid per click, an incentive that encourages outlandish titles that prompt people to see that ACORN was guilty of voter registration fraud, only to find out they weren’t.
And she is the maximum leader of ACORN? Her actions then, may be taken as policy?
The law broken in this instance has nothing to do with fraud. ACORN plead guilty to violating Nevada election laws, not to fraud. The act of paying per registration is illegal in Nevada regardless of the validity of the form submitted. Note that it’s perfectly legal in other states and in other countries.
Some are. Some are debating on good faith, and frankly it’s those guys that make it impossible for me to sustain my rage against the assholes that are not.
How can I treat, say, Bosstone with the contempt that is necessary to sustain a chicken-shit, bad faith debate? How can I subject Brian Ekers to phony demands for cites just because others are doing it?
I’ve tried, and I can’t.
No, Christopher was the maximum leader of ACORN Nevada.
Is it your contention that this action shouldn’t occur? Or that because it does occur the other side should do it?
It seems clear to me that you recognize it’s wrong to be a partisan hack. Which to me suggest that you yourself should make every attempt to AVOID being a partisan hack.
In reality, all you’ve done is prove that [conservatives] are partisan hacks since we don’t have a mirror situation yet of a [liberal] rubbing someone’s nose in a steaming pile of partisan shit.
High road, try it.
buzz.yahoo.com is an organization whose standard practice is to subvert the truth?
Did I miss a memo?
You do know an organization can be officially nonpartisan while still having a liberal (or conservative, or socialist, or whatever) political orientation, right?
Right? Or are you in denial about this as well?