I got it! It’s “MANY”! So long as that variable is defined as being a number greater than the number of ACORN registrations submitted, regardless of how many such registrations there may be, then ACORN has not submitted “MANY” registrations! Hence, “Nope, they did not” becomes a valid statement.
No, not at all. You and others of your sort were claiming that ACORN is not responsible for the activities of its employees. Now you are claiming that they are. Good - that means my point was carried.
ACORN is responsible for the actions of its employees.
Diogenes claims that ACORN didn’t perform any services. Voter registration is a service. Ergo, either Diogenes is wrong, or ACORN did perform services.
No doubt all of you clamoring to deny the videos will agree that, even if it had been forged, it presents something that is otherwise established, and is therefore perfectly worthwhile for a news organization to use to influence an election. Just like the National Guard forgeries for Bush. Right? 
Regards,
Shodan
ACORN didn’t perform any services FOR THE ERSATZ PIMP AND HO, which anyone of normal intelligence who was arguing sincerely would have been able to discern was the original intent of the post that you’re arguing about two pages ago! Your disingenuous attempt to make the case that it’s being argued that ACORN doesn’t provide services of any kind to anybody demonstrates traits usually found sub pontis.
Shodan, as a fellow conservative, I would love to agree with you but that is some fucked up repugnant “logic”.
It’s alright - he concluded with a :D. That makes everything okay.
Before we get too far into equating very different things, let’s get some specificity in here.
-
IANAL, but to the best of my understanding, ACORN is responsible for the consequences of its employees’ actions, when they are acting in their capacity of ACORN employees. So if any harm befell anyone as a result of these interviews, ACORN would be legally liable.
-
There’s a world of difference between that, and a claim that this alleged incident somehow calls into question the veracity of ACORN’s voter registration efforts. You’d have to show some causal connection or relationship that is certainly not implied by ACORN’s legal liability for the acts of its employees.
Not to mention that there are two different organizations under the ACORN banner, one that assists in voter registration and ACORN Housing, which helps low-income people acquire housing. I believe the offices that were victims of this idiotic sting were ACORN Housing.
There also has to be a plaintiff in order for there to be liability. As far as I know, no one has claimed any injury as a result of the pimp scam.
Shodan, do you have any intention of addressing my post #772? I would very much appreciate it.
Well, darn! I thought I had it with the semantic thingy! Should have realized that really creative minds are not bound by pedestrian realities.
You bunch of spoilsports. Trying to weasel in your cowardly “facts” and your faggoty “reasoning” in Shodan’s semantic ass-pulls, liberal (hehe) picking of nits and ballistic feces.
You were *supposed *to go “Aaaaaah !” and marvel at the rapier wit, goddammit !
If you backpedal any faster you’ll go back in time. Which might be a good thing, maybe you can meet your past self and let him know you should understand an issue before mouthing off about it.
Look Shodan, you’re just spewing gibberish now, maybe you should just sit this one out until you’re willing to discuss issues intelligently.
Fact: ACORN isn’t in the business of providing Prostitution Advice.
Fact: If one of its workers did provide prostitution advice, they were not acting in their capacity as ACORN employees.
Fact: Shodan doesn’t let facts get in the way of pathetic partisan mewlings.
ACORN is guilty of pissing off Republicans. They have a lot of power and took them down on BS trumped up crap. It was a setup by a couple of conservative clowns. No crimes were committed . They just gave the repubs a chance to make a lot of noise. It worked.
True enough, B’rer Gonzo, but there’s an upside. Why did the Forces of Darkness spend so much energy on a feckless bunch of idealists, slogging door to door to register a few thousand poor folks here, a few thousand there? Because it works! Because the cumulative effect was making them bleed in the close races. Because the vision of the lower and working classes registered to vote and politically motivated is what makes them wake up screaming and clutching for their banky.
And it doesn’t take major expenditures for PR hacks and doesn’t require massive funding. Shoe leather and determination is all that is required, and it fucking works! Yeee-haw, ride 'em and spank 'em!
A hard lesson, true. Shoulda knowed. But they taught us what they fear, and that is useful. Oh, yeah! Power to the people, when the people lead, the leaders will follow. Its dull, its tedious, its plodding, but it works. Took our enemies to teach us, but if we learn it, look out!
As a gesture of appreciation, I propose that we cut the Straight to the Wall List by half. Of course, I’m willing to compromise on that…
Agreed.
Agreed, however:
ACORN is in the business of providing tax and mortgage advice.
If one of its workers did provide advice intended to conceal illegal income, or use illegal income to finance a mortgage, then that worker was indeed acting in his capacity as an ACORN employee.
I’m willing to bet that you can go through ACORN’s manual with a fine toothed comb and you’d never find that they tell their workers to assist in hiding illegal monies.
In our burger joint analogy above, they sell food, but they don’t sell spitburgers. Just because they sell things to eat you can’t argue that someone spooging on a hamburger is acting in compliance with company policies.
Nope, not even close.
Also wrong.
Bricker has dealt with the first two of your fantasies. The third is equally imaginative.
And I mean that in a bad way.
Regards,
Shodan
So any organization that does not explicitly state its criminal intentions in its handbook is exempt from responsibility for what its employees do? I don’t think so.
Say something else ridiculous - I need further chuckles.
Regards,
Shodan
Of course. But surely you must know that the standard is not “acting in compliance with company policies.” If that were so, all any organization would have to do to shield itself from respondeat superior liability is issue clean policies.
There are a couple of principles that, on balance, establish that an organization is liable for the wrongful acts of its agents. One is whether the organization benefits from the wrongful act of the employee. In this case, it does, since it captures fees from completed transactions and uses its aggregate count of the people it assists to show the continued need for funding and grants. Another is, as you mentioned in your post above, whether the agents are acting within the time/space and subject matter scope of their agency. I know you know this one, because you said it.
I was about to make a point, but Shodan has made it for me (well, sort of, ish).
While I imagine I would not imply criminal intentions as he has done here, Shodan is correct in that it’s not enough to simply not include such behaviour in company policy. That’s the neutral position. What needs to be seen also is whether such behaviour is against company policy, and if when it happens it is actually punished, and to what extent.