Not really.
The CRA came into existence in 1977. We managed to avoid economic issues from it for 20 years with no real problems.
Remove deregulation and investors saw a crack in the system and dogpiled on it. That it was the subprime loans at the base does not in and of itself make the subprime loans automatically bad. That would be like saying you spilled gasoline on your stove and it blew up means stoves are bad.
Uh… did you miss Crawford v. Marion County Election Board?
They should probably change the word “submits” to “reports” if you have any desire for accuracy…
So far as I can tell, that is by no means determined. ACORN’s statement claims that they reported the fraud; this does not seem to be backed up by the state investigators.
ACORN has an obvious interest in being self-serving with their version. (I know, I know – they’re a lefty social justice group and can do no wrong.)
Agreed; also, they have a track record. This is not the first time this has happened to ACORN.
I think we basically agree. I’ll just say that while a house is a good and noble endeavor, it is, in the end a very large financial transaction—for most people, the single largest financial transaction of their lives. One must be expected to treat it with the care it requires. My sister bought a car not too long ago and got taken to the cleaners. If she would have done more work and been more prudent with her money she could easily have gotten a much better deal. Ignorance, as they say, can be very expensive.
While not dispositive, that is at any rate a more reasonable position than its IOKIARDI counterpart.
Ooh ooh! Me! Me!
I think what Steve is referring to is the fact that it remains unconstitutional to require ID, and then charge money to obtain said ID. The Indiana Law that now mandates an ID requirement (SEA 483, in case you were wondering), also eliminated the fee to obtain the ID, thus skirting the “poll tax” objection.
Otherwise, I’m totally with ya.
Bricker, I’m fine with requiring photo ID of all voters, if we eliminate absentee ballots. I’m sure you see the potential for voter fraud via mailed-in votes.
Precisely. A means-based charge still runs afoul of the prohibition on poll taxes, even if it arguably is not an example of the disenfranchisement the Amendment was intended to prohibit.
With you? I’m ahead of you, Luci.
You are having some difficulty grasping the fact that there are different kinds of opinion pieces. Some offer a purely personal perspective, such as the grief or anger felt at the assassination of a public figure or the writer’s moral attitude towards a public policy such as capital punishment or affirmative action. Obviously these don’t have much value as sources of factual information. But other pieces will cite specific facts in an attempt to influence readers’ opinions–and when one does, using it as a cite for informal conversation on the Internet is entirely appropriate.
Sure, there are better sources of information, such as scholarly papers in a peer-reviewed journal or investigative journalism in a reputable paper or magazine, but the fact that more impressive types of cites exist doesn’t mean that all the other types are invalid.
I don’t know where you people get this strange idea that opinion pieces should never be offered as cites or sources of information.
“Partisan,” however, is not the semantic equivalent of “untrue.” Unless you’ve got other, better sources of information which contradict him or can show that he has a history of lying about such things, your attempt to discredit him is an unsupported attack on his character. Garlock states that:
He was the director of the eastern region of the Resolution Trust Corporation, the corporation charged with straightening out the S&L debacle.
ACORN demanded that foreclosed housing be made available for free.
ACORN demonstrated and tried to intimidate the staff.
The RTC office in King of Prussia, Pa., needed police officers to escort staff to and from their cars to prevent assaults on their person, and vandalism to their vehicles.
Any journalist who knows what he’s doing would be able to confirm or refute those claims from public records. As Garlock is setting himself up for a mighty big fall if he’s lying, I’m immensely skeptical that he’d make these claims if he knew he couldn’t back them up. Now, can you give me specific reasons to believe he’s lying?
If an article in the Kos offers specific information which is verifiable, then an article on the Kos could be offered as a cite. The piece I offered was published in the Atlanta Journal and Constitution, a reputable paper which takes some trouble to vet its writers. Obviously the AJ&C is a better cite than the Kos, even if the cite offered is an opinion piece.
(yawn) What do you mean by “we,” and what are the standards? Who decided on these standards for the SDMB, and when? Any published piece, opinion or not, which offers verifiable information can be a valid cite. In the past I’ve used opinion pieces ranging from Jack London’s essay on socialism to Harlan Ellison’s The Glass Teat as cites. The question isn’t whether or not the piece is “opinion,” the question is whether or not the information therein is presented as objectively factual and verifiable.
Umm–how is it “unsupported” when he cites specific facts to justify his low opinion of ACORN? Again, he presents facts. If you think those facts aren’t true, you need to make a case.
No, but you do need to work on you manners.
Yes, I’m implying that a substantial number of poor people do not make responsible decisions. While age is a legal qualifier for adulthood it does not bestow common sense or the skill sets that a 12 year education should provide.
I find it the worst evil to encourage such people to buy a house. It is normally the most important investment anyone makes and it should come from individual effort. Any help in the process should be in the form of education and/or personal investment (habitat programs where the future homeowner builds part of the house). Knowledge and sweat equity can be leveraged against a down payment.
It’s hard to discuss something like this in a few sentences because people jump to the conclusion that a general observation is all encompassing. There are always going to be extenuating circumstances but after observing people for 50 years its painfully obvious that most who come from an impoverished background are poorly educated with little or no help from their parents. They are not capable of taking care of themselves as adults, which is critical to the concept of adulthood.
What does my being a moderator have to do with you going to a separate site than that which I read (and to which I linked) and finding different information than was availaible to me? If you want to make trumped up accusations about selective quoting, at least have enough respect for yourself to actually read the same text that I quoted.
As to your feverish belief that ACORN somehow twisted the arms of a Republican controlled government and all the various banking and credit holding corporations and institutions for six years to prevent the government from correcting errors of regulation and compel the corporations to behave in the least prudent manner possible, I see no reason to try to combine that with a separate charge of a voter fraud conspiracy.
Perhaps ACORN is the new Trilateral Commission?
Actually, my distinction is quite valid. Possessing an unregistered firearm in some states and carrying it in a concealed manner is a violation of the law, but it does not become a matter of adding to “armed robbery” until a robbery is attempted.
Underpaid grunts submitting ridiculous names with bogus addresses to pad an assignment for money does not actually get into the same arena as attempting to defraud an election. I am sure that they are covered under the same sections of the Law, but they are really different crimes unless an actual attempt to cast a spurious ballot is made.
Perhaps you would not be surprised. However, the fact that the agency that collected the petitions attempted to warn the election board of problems with the dcuments and the fact that the state officer who initiated the investigation is of the political party that would most likely stand to benefit from such an action would seem to argue against that, so actually providing evidence that an real attempt at voter fraud (at the level of individual voters) would be a help.
Beyond that, I have no problem with establishing a voter ID procedure that is both secure and free. (Secure, of course, would include a legitimate physical (typically paper) trail, so that elections are less likely to be stolen by the company that provides the devices to tally votes and some prohibition against a state officer from removing voters from her state’s rolls based on a document of similar names taken from a different state.) I do have a bit of disappointment in the manner in which you initiated this thread, but I do not have a problem with establishing secure elections.
In light of the current credit crisis caused in no small part by greed and corruption in investment banks, it is equally true that a substantial number wealthy people do not make responsible decisions, either
Per Bricker’s request, the title has been shortened by the removal of “; SDMB looks intently elsewhere”.
[ /Modding ]
In the interests of accuracy (300 registration cards out of 80,000), shouldn’t you remove the “en masse” as well?
If you want accuracy, go to GQ and pray or else read (most of) Uncle Cec’s columns. This is GD and accuracy is GD hard to find in many thread titles.
Don’t people have to actually vote fraudulently before voter fraud can occur?
Y’know what, I must admit that Bricker is right, at least about the way I think.
I just can’t freak out about 300 or even a thousand fake names. Personally, I’m far more concerned about legitimate, qualified voters being purged from the rolls. To me it is a far, far greater crime to disenfranchise someone incorrectly (whether by negligence or malfeasance) than it is to let a few false names through.
And yet in general, Republican officials are more concerned with removing voters from the rolls than ensuring that everyone who’s eligible to vote, may:
I couldn’t disagree with them more. I think it is a far worse threat to American democracy when a vote is unjustly prevented than when some hypothetical ex-felon is erroneously granted permission to cast a vote.
By all means, if ACORN’s workers acted falsely or incompetently, the corrections should be made. But I just can’t get outraged about this. I’m more afraid that someone who wants to vote will be denied without cause.
It might even happen to a Republican.