That 30% couldn’t vote, now could it? So where’s the harm?
And, by the way, that leaves 70% which *are *valid. That’s a lot of voters who wouldn’t normally have voted.
It’s not ACORN’s fault that some of those new voters won’t vote the way you like.
Um, okay, but how would you know?
It’s even better to test your grasp of facts than of ideas. But does that ever work with you? Has there ever been any occasion when you’ve realized you were simply wrong about the facts? That you got lied to and swallowed it whole? Well, there have been many when you *should *have.
Wrong. It’s based on how well you grasp and apply facts. That isn’t a matter of opinion or agreement, it’s a matter of reality vs. fantasy. That is what your reputation lies on, and why it’s not one you should be proud of.
Don’t kid yourself about that, either.
All you ever have to do is point out where the things being stated as fact are wrong. Do you ever? Can you point out your favorite example of that, just for our consideration? Even one?
Okay, let’s try this: What is your definition of “fact”? How is it different from your definition of “opinion”? Or your definition of “talking point”, for that matter? Do you even know?
If you’re going to call people out on lies, it’s best not to lie yourself, huh? Especially not so childishly. Not one person ever said “the entire Bush administration” OR “half the US military”, did they? Either you don’t know better or you just don’t care, do you?
Do the names Gonzales, Yoo, Feith, Addington, Bybee, and Haynes ring any bells with you? The documentation is there. Facts.
Not true, in either case. Don’t lie. Facts.
Facts again.
That’s where the facts lead. That’s were laws were broken.
No, your ridiculous attempts to continue the lies were met with ridicule. And quite properly, too.
No, not the organization, only individuals. But those are facts, and therefore irrelevant to you.
No, dismissed as FALSE. There’s that problem with facts again.
You certainly have the ability to contribute to our discussions here, but not the willingness to do so with even the minimum respect to the world of reality. At least Bricker has enough connection with Planet Earth to try to tailor his arguments around facts. You just bluster about the people pointing them out to you whenever you get caught out either making up lies or repeating others’, as happens so routinely.
You mentioned your “reputation” here, as if you even knew what yours is here. Reputations are earned. You’ve earned yours very well indeed.
Remember: Facts.
'Ya know, Shodan, it’s not that you are conservative. That isn’t it. The SDMB doesn’t automatically attack anyone who dissents from the liberal groupthink. It’s just that you are dishonest.
Now, if you were an honest debater, like Bricker, you wouldn’t be Pitted and called a troll. Because the word ‘troll’ on the SDMB is not just shorthand for anyone who isn’t a knee-jerker.
So debate honestly, don’t lie, and these accusations will stop happening.’
Suuuuuuuuuuuuuure they will.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, if you’d actually debate honestly for once, you wouldn’t have to use an imaginary third person as a guide. But we’ll never know, will we?
I doubt anyone will pit you for switching sides if it bothers you that much.
It’s too bad people think Bricker is a troll, it’s too bad anyone is thought of as a troll.
Sam doesn’t do facts. He tells lies.
Well, considering the majority of the people participating in this thread, myself included, came in to say that the accusation of trollery was unwarranted, this whole post pretty much reeks of bullshit, now doesn’t it.
Try reading more than just the OP next time.
Once you find out what they mean by “troll”, it isn’t too bad at all. Some of these people are idiots - if they approve what I posted, I would worry.
Regards,
Shodan
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Look at the kind of horseshit they believe in. Snowboarder Bo claims that this post by Sam is a lie -
Click on the link, and what do you find?
Considering the number of posters who turned this thread into attacks on Sam Stone and the usual repeated denials that the facts in the ACORN case(s) were as they were, no, it doesn’t. Not at all.
Regards,
Shodan
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Look at what you’re doing to Michael Ellis. Just stop, if there’s any compassionate bone in your body.
That judicialwatch site is fucking hilarious.
After a year of Bricker’s baseless insinuations about Acorn, I stand by my use of the word “troll.” What’s the difference between a “baseless insinuation” and a “lie?” Maybe there is one in court, but out in the real world they are the same thing. He’s stirring shit to get a rise out of people, and that’s trolling.
Sam and Shodan are just mean-spirited idiots. I don’t expect better out of them.
Actually, now you are lying. What I said was that the text he quoted to support his assertion wasn’t in the link he provided.
Fuck off,
Bo
This:
Both the subject and the predicate of Sam’s statement are lies. The subject noun, the capitalized “DIRECTOR”, has a normal meaning along the lines of “Board of Directors”, for the purpose of insinuating that there is corruption which starts at the very top of the organization. But the guy he refers to was a first-level supervisor.
The predicate is also a lie. His conviction was not for fraud, as his own fucking cite says.
And for that matter, that site is JudicialWatch. Might as well cite a Free Republic post.
Your own damn signature line is a lie. You have no regards for anyone more sane than Glenn Beck.
On the evidence of the OP the only troll in this thread is dropzone.
Calling Bricker a troll is just stupid.
His opinion and responses to the ACORN silliness have been confused, but it seems quite clear to me that he’s not doing it with the intention of stirring people up. He rarely posts with such motivation, unlike a fucking rusted tool such as Shodan, who usually does.
What do you find? Scandal! Corruption! Nefarious procedures!
Actually, not much. The relevent state law forbids offering an incentive for registration workers to perform with exceptional zeal. Apparently, the authors of said regulation feared that if registration canvassers were offered extra incentive for production, that could lead to problems. Point taken, it very well could.
But does any reasonable person believe that this rather minor flub constitute a ghastly assault on our election system? Seriously?
And only the utterest maroon could look at that site and not know that it is dedicated to a ferocious attack on ACORN.
“…Christopher Edwards paid canvassers—many of them “lazy crack heads”…” just for instance. And please note that charges and allegations are offered as proof of charges and allegations. We’re blowing smoke, there must be fire!
Who are ACORN’s enemies, and why? Why are they hated with such ferocity? Who benefits?
I submit that ACORN is hated precisely for pursuing an effort that ought to considered worthwhile, if not actually noble. They are seeking to empower the powerless, to bring them into the civic arena. This arouses considerable distress amongst those who would prefer…what? That they remain powerless and disorganized? Does anyone have any doubt as to why they would prefer that?
You can’t actually judge a group entirely by its enemies, but I submit to you that its a darn good clue.