Pssst. Hey Marley, your bias is showing.
Then you haven’t been paying attention. The Christian Coalition has always, like ACORN, claimed to be non-partisan, otherwise they wouldn’t have their tax exempt status.
Whenever Ralph Reed appeared in the media when he was their head, he always proclaimed they were a “non-partisan” organization that supported both Republicans and Democrats.
By your standards they are non-partisan unless you’d like to rethink what you previously said.
Incidentally, what’s with the hostility towards people who are developmentally disabled.
Moreover, would you mind answering the question I asked earlier.
Dude, I always said that those groups ARE partisan organizations.
Please read my posts before making comments. I’m sure you’re not stupid, but you post is.
“non-partisan” at least from a legal standpoint, doesn’t mean “non-conservative and non-liberal” it means that the group, at least officially, doesn’t support any political party.
Moreover, Dio recognized this when he started this moronic “ACORN isn’t a partisan organization” meme.
As I said, by Dio’s moronic reasoning, if we’re going to classify ACORN as “non-partisan” then we have to declare both the Club for Growth and the Christian Coalition to be “non-partisan”.
Nor are they alone. Technically, the Sierra Club, the NRA, Moveon.org, and various other groups are officially “non-partisan” but no one with a functioning brain thinks they are.
Again, please read what I actually have said before shooting off your mouth.
“Self”, I says, “Stay out of this thread.” But here I is.
Anyway, in terms of advocating liberal causes, ACORN was an intervenor for the city in Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs v Jersey City, which was a lawsuit challenging Jersey City’s “One Gun a Month” law.
One of ACORN’s campaigns was one to increase the minimum wage, and founded the “Living Wage Resource Center”. You can find the google cache here:
ACORN was also one of the organizations involved in the founding of the New Party. which was a social-democratic, pro union party that was founded in the 1990s, as well as its successor in New York State, the Working Families Party:
I’d also suggest “The People Shall Rule: ACORN, Community Organizing and the Struggle for Economic Justice.”
For some reason I always think Club for Growth is the new name for the Hair Club for Men.
Diogenes seems to be using the terms partisan and political as synonyms here, when they in fact do not have quite the same meaning.
So the strategy of the American Left is to vanquish its internal foes through civil war and then invade France, while dreamily optimistic that all will turn out well in the end?
I do like the idea of invading France as a distraction from our other problems. We might not win, but we’d almost certainly wind up with better cheese.
I concede that ACORN paid some workers by the number of registrations collected and that was in violation of the law in some areas. I concede that to pay a woman for sex is in violation of the law in most areas. I fail to see a victim in either case. Who exactly was harmed by ACORN paying per registration collected?
Well. Apparently, **Bricker **has been mortally offended.
ACORN was neither partisan or political, no matter what Fox News told you to think.
No, I’m actually somewhat pleased with the outcome here. I learned (again!) the value of careful crafting of an OP.
And numerous nitwits got to display their nitwittery.
It could have been better, but it wasn’t bad.
Better question : Why is that relevant to the discussion, given the other points that render it utterly moot? My post does not assume that they violated or did noot violate the law, it accounts for both possibilities and finds your argument still wanting.
Geez…seems the two sides need some definitions:
Clearly ACORN was devoted to a cause and an ardent and enthusiastic supporter of certain activities.
These activities have been supported by the left and opposed by the right which gives it all a political character. One might say registering voters is not and should not be a politically divisive thing…all citizens should vote. Nevertheless it is a political football that gets kicked around quite a lot and denying that is denying reality.
That said, as a non-profit organization, ACORN is prohibited from political activity.
So, in that sense, they did not engage directly in politics.
That said I think ACORN had another aspect which was a lobbying arm (and thus not a tax exempt organization). While separate in funding they acted to lobby the government in accordance with the mission they wanted and that mission, as noted, is distinctly a lefty thing and opposed by the right.
Their mission was not partisan, only the opposition to it was because it incidentally helped Democrats.
OK. That clarifies everything!
Every coin has two sides.
Even if you start out with no “side” in mind as soon as someone defines a side opposed to you then you are, by definition, on the other side whether you wanted to be or not. To continue your mission you must oppose those arrayed against you. If not you are out of business so there is little choice in the matter.
This is an excellent point! As a matter of fact, if the Democrats (of today) actually did fight for the things that ACORN fought for, there might not have been any need for ACORN to exist.
ACORN was not an arm of the Democrats, nor partisans to that group. In fact, the only way that they could have been considered partisans is if one were to believe that fighting for the poor, for worker’s rights, and for civil rights could be considered a “cause.” If so, ACORN was partisan to that cause, but Democrats, as a party, could hardly be described similarly.
Seems to me your post disposed of arguments rather perfunctorily. For example, (B) asserts that ACORN did nothing wrong even if they did commit the illegal act.
I have withdrawn the claim of “wrongness” in an effort to focus on the utterly and trivially provable, but I have not disavowed it. And so I don’t agree. I think it was wrong.
But I recognize that people of good faith may disagree on that point.
What they did was illegal in Nevada.
What they did is legal in other states.
So, in your view, the “wrongness” only applies in Nevada (or other states) where it is illegal? Everywhere else it is peachy?