One of the workers said she killed her ex-husband. That, of course was investigated. All her exes are healthy and alive. She went along with the obvious stupid game they were playing and had fun with it. People wonder how they could believe these white kids . Well, they didn’t. They just played with them. This is a trumped of pile of B.S. It reveals nothing about ACORN.
That’s the same woman who whooshed them with the story about killing her husband, so I think it’s pretty obvious that she was dicking with them.
Does the fact that she was lying about killing her husband mean she had to be onto them? Is it remotely possible she was just talking shit to make herself sound tough? I’ve had guys tell me a story that was mildly amusing then 5 years later tell me a wildly exaggerated version of the same story … its somewhat human nature to embelish
The woman said she knew they were faking and was playing along. The story of killing her ex was part of that playing. That seems more likely to me than she took them seriously and then just threw in that lie to seem tough.
Remotely possible? I suppose. Are we going to condemn ACORN over that?
So she only killed them a little bit, but years later the story she told was that she killed them, like all the way? Makes perfect sense!
-Joe
Question: this is a toss-up question, two points, either team can buzz in with the answer…
Which news related shows has this O’Keefe fellow been on? I saw some of him on a Fox Gnaws commentary roundtable, where softball questions were gently lobbed. Has he been on any shows where a less laudatory approach might have been used? I’d like to take a quick gander, for comparison sake if nothing else.
I have neither condoned nor condemned Acorn nor do I think it necessarily means the entire organization is corrupt … I’m sure the do a great deal of good work for the community. At the same time tho It wouldn’t surprise me if this women would say whatever it takes to save her job.
Well, this site http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=15294 has a link to a document they claim is a restraing order filed by one of her husbands.
so maybe she pulled a gun on the husband and the story grew??
Have you seen what they looked like/ Who could take them seriously? A white kid with a fur coat and a pimp cane playing dress up. It was a joke to everyone but Fox.
My first visceral impression of her was that she was recovering from being a deranged, drug-addled skank to deranged skank. That’s a wholly subjective impression, I don’t pretend it has any more weight than that. I just don’t like her “vibes”.
See, ACORN is driven by the liberal ideology of compassion and change. They sincerely believe that poor people are inherently more virtuous. This is nonsense, of course, one of the biggest reasons to fight against poverty is because it corrupts and degrades its victims.
But ACORN believes in people, they believe in second chances, they hire people nobody else will touch. That makes them vulnerable to grifters, losers, and system-gamers. Is that naive stupidity, or moral courage?
Your call.
This thread is about whether ACORN workers, and/or ACORN are guilty of anything. It’s looking pretty questionable.
What you seem to be saying is what I’ve said. WE don’t have enough evidence to really know.
Would it surprise you if OKeefe clipped the videos and presented them dishonestly in order to get attention and or money? Is there more reason to believe something negative about the ACORN workers than there is him?
It wouldn’t surprise me in the least, nor would it surprise me if he had been “shown the door” on multiple scam attempts. I know O’keffe has a agenda, but it does surprise me that a number of people keep suggesting things as fact in Acorns defense that can’t or haven’t been proved.
Why does that surprise you? People also keep suggesting things as fact about ACORN that are detrimental that can’t or haven’t been proved.
That’s different. ACORN’s guilty.
What has been suggested as fact to defend ACORN?
True, but there are plenty of people on this board ready to beat them down. 
Perhaps I shouldn’t say Acorn, but instead the people on the tape.
Well, I’m asking.
Releasing the tapes does not mean handing over the originals. It could be as simple as holding a news conference and playing them for the media. It could be making full copies of the originals.
I’m not sure why he should be afraid of being questioned. We’re questioning ACORN, and it is equally valid to question O’Keefe.
Well either way, what specifically has been presented as factual in their defense?
Since ACORN and it’s workers are the ones being attacked with certain claims we’re discussing what is factual and what isn’t. An edited tape is hardly convincing proof.
The edited tape hasn’t convinced me of anything yet … I want to see the full tapes … but I’m not going to dismiss it because Opie is to white to be a belivable pimp
Well, the one I have asked about several times is Acorns statement that O’keffe has tried to pull this stunt for months and been shown the door in all but a few times. I have seen this used to argue that its just a few bad apples and its not surprising when he scores a few hits. Now, that’s a perfectly valid arguments if Acorns statement is True, However O’keffe has denied it being true.
While I wouldn’t be surprised if it was true, should Acorn have to back their statement up at all or should I just go with
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic
ACORN doesn’t have to prove jack shit. Let’s see douchey-pimp’s unedited tapes.