The matter of sufficiency and necessity seemed relevant enough for you to bring them up. So: if this embezzlement issue is insufficient to warrant pulling funds, why did the right want ACORN to lose its funding so badly they were moved to commit libel?
There was no video scandal, only some false accusations.
No, because they didn’t.
Ron Schiller did not lose his job at the Aspen Institute but told them he had changed his mind about working for them.
Cite?
I have already posted my cite to the contrary, but to refresh your recollection:
Seems to me you’re denying the truth of the statements the New York Times printed. To do so, you must have some other evidence to counter their claims. What is it?
And I suppose Vivian Schiller didn’t lose her job at NPR, but resigned?
“small group of executives decided to keep the information from almost all of the group’s board members and not to alert law enforcement.”
A small group of executives kept the information from the Board. That’s not ACORN doing anything, that’s ACORN getting victimized again.
There is no indication in the story that Ron Schiller was asked not take the job at Aspen.
Ahh, I see.
And at what point does it become “ACORN,” and not the actions of ACORN executives?
Every corporate action arises because employees of the corporation do something to cause it. At what point do you contend that an action like that is imputed to the company as a whole?
It’s kind of funny that James O’Keefe is pretending to be outraged that Schiller called teabaggers racist when O’Keefe himself used to be active in organizing white supremacist rallies.
Cite? I know he once attended some gathering like that, but I don’t believe he ever organized any. Did he?
When it becomes institutional, and not just the shenanigans of a few top exeuctives unbeknownst to the rest of the organization.
When the company as a whole is doing something wrong.
Who was victimized by these execs not reporting the embezzlement?
My hope is to someday see a whole page without a single readable reply. Way to go guys, keep pluckin that chicken!
Bricker, you’re own cite shows that it was not ACORN that covered up the embezzlement, but a small group of ACORN executives, acting without the (informed) consent of the board of directors.
For a guy who spends as much time parsing meanings as you do, it’s surprising that you won’t concede this point.
Face it, you blew it this time. You made your bet, showed your hand, and it’s a loser.
You mean he’s not a native son of the nation of Namibia ??? :eek:
Those damned revisionist historians…mucking up The One Truth™…
Even if I were to credit the most damaging statements in that piece as utterly true, here is what was proved:
That’s not organizing. He was involved the same way you’d be involved if you went to a party and you put out the cups and stocked the cooler. And even that’s assuming that the chain of “Isis told me that Weigel told her that Andrew did this…” is valid.
Same question I asked Diogenes: when does it become ACORN instead of ACORN executives?
Are you taking the same approach for British Petroleum? It was just a few workers that may have done something wrong, not the company as a whole?
But the company as a whole has no way of reporting the embezzlement.
When you say that BP Oil did something wrong in the Gulf oil spill, you don’t hold them to that standard, do you?
That is organizing, in my book. Would you put out the milk and cookies at a white supremacist event. Would you man a table of white supremacist literature as O’Keefe was photographed doing?