Can’t point to a single instance of that with me, Chuckles. I have readily admitted both error and ignorance on these boards more times than I care to count.
Bingo.
Legally, technically they are “guilty”. That is ALL that matters to friend Bricker.
What, precisely, did ACORN plead guilty to?
(Hint) It was not paying people to get others to register as voters.
Voter fraud and child prostitution, duh.
And once, ACORN walked past me in the mall and didn’t say hi.
Well, for this thread… yes.
Don’t expand the purpose of this thread to my view of the larger issue. I think ACORN was unfairly swamped under a rush to judgement, fueled by doctored tapes and innuendo. They got the corporate equivalent of the death penalty for the corporate crime of cheating on a few tax deductions – serious, but not anything warranting the severe sanctions imposed.
I’ve said this in many threads, many times. But since everyone agrees that this is the minimum truth, it gets no real attention. But I’ll say it again.
And so for you to continue to insist that I’m not saying it, or I don;t mean it, is kind of curious, isn’t it?
Now, since I’ve repeatedly said what I think about the larger issue, why don’t YOU weigh in on the thread’s issue: did ACORN actually commit a crime?
Of nothing.
Challenge accepted:
(A bit of arguing back and forth on whether Scalia is a textualist or originalist)
So, the man himself thinks he is an Originalist. I think we can safely say he knows what he means here.
Did you admit your mistake?
Nope.
This wasn’t even all that long ago and you continued in the thread a fair bit longer too so didn’t miss it (I even pointed it out again to someone else claiming he was a textualist).
So spare me your righteousness.
Oh, and in the spirit of this thread:
“BRICKER is willing to admit he is wrong” no longer true
You did, in fact, in your OP, imply that it was O’Keefe who proved ACORN was bad.
I’ll take your word that that was not what you meant, and that I misinterpreted, but I do so grudgingly. It would have saved a lot of grief in this thread (well, maybe not a lot, but some) had you left O’Keefe out entirely. He was never relevant to your point.
No he is obviously not better than that. He has been on this wrong case for so long he has become a right wing joke. Thanks BRICKER for thread 300 on ACORN.
So can I assume we’re talking about a single instance as I asked here:
'cause I’m feeling a little left out here 
True. That was a bad move on my part.
I left him in carelessly, but tried to be clear in subsequent comments that O’Keefe was not somehow rehabilitated by this.
So let me be very clear: O’Keefe is still a lying scum, and this does nothing to change that; O’Keefe is utterly irrelevant to the point I am making.
Wisest thing I’ve read in this “discussion”… I think I’ll do the same.
Did I ever address that post? What makes you think I saw it?
Which is quite far from the claims made by the right wing witch hunters. It has not yet been shown that ACORN assisted one ineligible person who became registered to vote and that such person ever cast a vote. Surely, if ACORN malfeasance were as widespread as the Fox News hysteria would indicate, there should be a plethora of such cases to choose from.
Contrary to the wet dreams of Bricker and his ilk, it has been some time since “voting while poor” has been a crime.
And to the meat of the matter: perhaps you can quote the post in which I said something which you contend is wrong.
That’s a far cry from saying Scalia is not an originalist.
In the case under discussion, he was using textualism. He is a textualist. He is an originalist. The two are not mutually exclusive.
No, it’ll just have to scatter its seed randomly and count on squirrels to disperse it.
The claim here is simple, Kevbo: In Nevada, ACORN paid people by the registration form, which is a crime in Nevada.
True? Or false?
I’m going from memory (sorry, it’s getting too late to spend a lot of time looking for the threads) but in general, the liberal response to O’Keefe’s sting (including me) was that ACORN had done nothing wrong. In side-conversations about the voter registration issues, a subset of that liberal response (as also seen here, and not including me) insisted that ACORN had done nothing wrong.
It is the latter that Bricker refers to. I’m pretty sure.
Does that help?
I was kind of hoping for a response from Bricker to clear up what he intended but I think I have a better picture now - thanks Frank!
No, (2) is not a strawman argument. Unless you have Diogenes on ignore, you have only to read his contributions to this thread to see he’s making the (2) argument.