Sure it is. At least as much as any other citizen arguing for a particular government policy or action. Who, if not me? Do you have a more valid right than I to decide how hard it should be to register? Your vote counts more than mine, maybe? Your received your franchise from Thomas Jefferson, did you?
Whether you did or not, the subject arose in this thread:
So that’s what I’m addressing.
Now, that strikes me as a rather a self-serving construct. You have stated the case in the most absurd imaginable terms, i.e., utter innocence to make angels blush. Bricker, brave champion of truth and reason, has finally retreated to a solid bunker of undeniable fact.
You are quite correct, and I throw myself at your feet grovel grovel. To the extent that I ever suggested such a ridiculous thing, I herewith repudiate such a position being entirely convinced otherwise. To the extent that I ever believed such an absurdity, I credit Bricker’s keen mind and incisive reasoning for correcting.
Friend** Bricker** has clearly won this argument, to the extent there was ever an argument worthy of firing off such high-caliber ammunition.
Frankly, I cannot think of any human organization that meets such daunting standards. Camp Fire Girls, maybe, but not so much after that whole “puppy S’mores” incident.
The board is absolutely responsible for ensuring an adequate control structure exists. Even ignoring the Blackwater non sequitur Bricker already pointed out, ACORN doesn’t get a pass because their board was clueless. That simply means embezzlement occurred, it was covered up, and the board was incompetent (assuming the board was, in fact, clueless).
And I have NEVER heard a company excused because of incompetence or wrongdoing executed by the very people responsible for safeguarding the company, setting policy and ensuring it’s followed. This level of excuse making is ridiculous, even for this message board. “Madoff Investment Securities is as pure as the driven snow, your honor. It was just that one guy…”
Well, like I said before, these people are crazy, they’re not in it for the fast cars, money and drugs. If this cover-up was a matter of cash payoffs to the covering parties, I can be pretty harsh. That’s because I respect the mission of ACORN and expect every dime they can beg to go to said mission.
But if they covered it up for reasons of personal embarrassment without direct gain, I lighten up a bit. And if they covered up out of fear of their political enemies, who would surely use any such leverage they could get their hands on. I’m downright sympathetic.
Because then the victim ceases to be ACORN itself, but becomes the people ACORN might otherwise have helped. A sentence of community service seems most appropriate.
Yeah, OK, I admit it. I used my teeming Midochlorian count and a Jedi Mind Trick to make Diogenes say:
Now I’m working on you. You feelin’ any inclinations involving a goat?
I’m talking about the person who made the video, not former NPR executive Ron Schiller. The videomaker came in with a specific agenda: To make NPR look bad. To fulfill that agenda, he came posing as a member of a muslim organization hoping to bait Schiller into accepting the donation (he declined). Even if he had made hundred videos where NPR looked good, he wouldn’t air any of them, because they don’t fit with the agenda. He didn’t come into that room seeking the truth, he seeked to generate a propoganda video. That’s why I rolled my eyes upon seeing news of this video, because it was put out by O’Keefe’s outfit… and O’Keefe has a very slimy history when it comes to video “exposes.”
I’m sorry I didn’t put the post into the appropriate context, but I do feel NPR is being wronged. There’s a concerted campaign by conservatives, trying to portray NPR as having a radical leftist agenda. This should be laughable to anyone who has ever actually listened to NPR, but that meme seems to be gaining traction. They seek to remove NPR’s federal funding. They’d love all of our media to be corporate owned, and not have any non-profit news organizations.
I didn’t. And you know it. Or should know it, as you should have read what I wrote before trying to claim I said something I didn’t say.
But not by me. Why do you expect me to defend what someone else wrote?
Which you think allows you to claim I said something I didn’t say, in an attempt to get me to defend something I didn’t say, all while you claim I’m culpable for something I know nothing about just like you claim that everyone at ACORN is responsible for something they knew nothing about.
No, in most cases they just settle the matter with a pathetic fine without admitting any wrongdoing whatsoever.
Cite?
Let me rephrase. I look for examples in the news of corporations actually punished beyond a fine when the government finds them guilty of wrongdoing. Most of these cases that I see in the news result in companies settling for a fine and no admission of wrongdoing.
I want to find those counterexamples. I want to be able to rub my hands together and gloat. They apparently just don’t make the media, and you’d think they would.
Again, Bricker, because you’re so desperately trying to avoid it.
When you give guns and clearances to losers—a fair number of whom have ‘problems’—it’s YOUR FUCKING JOB to make sure they’re not rapists and murderers. Christ, you’re a dishonorable shit. Anything to defend Repubs, right?
Sorry, I’ll try to do better in the future you goat felching ambulance chaser.
Take that back, you! Bricker uses a scanner and chases police cars to the scene, not ambulances!
What do you want them to do, send the building to prison? The only thing you can do to a corporation, for the most part, is to fine it (or withhold Federal funds, or revoke licenses, etc., if applicable). Members of corporations who commit criminal acts are prosecuted and if the crime rises to that level, they’re sent to prison. Google Bernie Ebbers or Jeff Skilling or Bernie Madoff. Or Andrew Fastow, Scott Sullivan, Mark Swartz, Joseph Nacchio, Walter Forbes, Kirk Shelton or Conrad Black. Or Sarbanes Oxley. I am honestly dubious that anyone could have made ANY kind of effort (including just paying attention to the news) and concluded that there are no “counter examples” (I would just call them additional examples).
I know this doesn’t fit the particular talking point you’re trying to advance, but fraud and embezzlement, shockingly enough, are considered bad shit by those in charge of prosecuting such things, regardless of who does it, not just when ACORN is involved. Huge fines are levied, people go to prison, it hits the papers–all that good stuff.
I don’t see the equivalent of what was done to ACORN. And you could easily do the same to a corporation. Deny them the ability to do business. Or simply blacklist them any government contracts. ACORN died, as has been pointed out, because the donation flow ebbed. BP nearly suffered the same fate before governments intervened on its behalf.
I’m asking for parity in both the burden of proof AND the punishment levied. Especially when many of these corporations are supported with subsidies with my tax dollars.
No, you’re asserting this is so without any evidence. So I’ll ask again, cite? I dion’t need to hear your concerned disappointment again, I’m asking for something to substantiate that this is common place.
ACORN would likely have the same opportunity, had it been an SEC settlement. Read your own cite. It does not support the notion that there are privileged corporations, apparently anyone other than ACORN, who get sweetheart deals despite the evidence of egregious malfeasance. It says that the SEC would rather facilitate a quicker settlement than litigate, and it makes no mention of this being a solution available only to evil Republican types. Not to mention it covers only SEC matters. Keep trying.
ACORN didn’t have the opportunity and a corporation would not have been handled in the same way ACORN was handled.
If you think some corporations aren’t privileged, we’re not from the same planet and I’ll pass on the “keep trying” bit.
It’s moot really. " I am honestly dubious" that you’re engaging in a real attempt to discuss the issue.