Well, if you had actually been following the thread, you’d realize that we were talking about ‘principles of democracy’.
One of which principles, according to you, is that people who are not just “lazy and stupid” but now “retards” should not be allowed to vote. The definition of those terms would apparently, again to you, make them synonymous with “inclined to vote for Democrats”. That’s pretty much it, right? :rolleyes:
Gotta give you credit for more honesty than **Bricker **on that, at least.
I never said they shouldn’t be allowed to vote. They just need to provide a valid ID to do so like everyone else.
And in case you can’t figure it out on your own, I’m using retard and stupid interchangeably usually resulting from being too lazy to learn anything useful. Not referring to people who have actual disabilities.
Ahh, "Buuuuut ACORN!!1! " The panic call of the conservative that’s got nothing. Lets examine your poorly chosen comparison, shall we?
- When presented with bogus voter registration forms, ACORN:
a) Turned them in to the state. (as they were required to do by law). Flagged them as suspect. (beyond what they were required to do by law) Dismissed the workers responsible…or:
b) Lied about the existence of the bogus registrations, enrolled the miscreant workers in a counseling program, and reassigned them to ACORN offices in New Mexico. Promoted the manager who made this decision to the top position in the organization.
2) When presented with overwhelming evidence of priests diddling kids, the Roman Catholic Church:
a) Turned the offending priests and all known evidence over to police. Worked with the victims and families to attempt to make them whole. Instituted policies to make it easier for future victims to report inappropriate behavior by priests…or:
b) Accused the victims of lying and threatened excommunication. Covered the whole thing up as much as possible. Moved the offending priests to backwater parishes where they could continue their kid diddling. Spent millions of dollars donated by poor people attempting to shield the church from legal consequences of the failed cover-up. Elected one of the men responsible for the cover-up (Joseph Ratzinger) as Pope. Accused anyone outraged by these events as being anti-catholic bigots.
In both cases the actions of a limited number of individuals reflected poorly on the institution. The behavior of said institutions, once aware of the behavior, tells us all we need to know about the moral character of said institutions. The fact that a trained lawyer thinks that people outraged at this are anti-catholic bigots proves that religion and reason seldom dine at the same table.
You don’t see the difference between people who choose not to vote because they don’t see the point in our system and people who would vote but cannot because they can’t pass hurdles put in the way for arbitrary reasons.
I honestly think that election day should be a paid holiday to anyone who can demonstrate that they voted. But this is all beside the point. Yes, clearly, we can’t make voting possible for everyone. Clearly, no matter what we do, some people will consider voting “eh, can’t be fucked”. Yes, that’s a wonderful bunch of Red Herrings and distractions.
But you know what? That’s not what this is about. This is about you guys implementing a new law that would put another hurdle up to voting in order to make our voting procedure more representative. The fact is that if this law makes elections less representative, then it has failed its primary purpose. And unless you want to come out and admit that its primary purpose is not “make elections more fair”, then that’s where it ends. It doesn’t matter that people don’t show up because of the weather. It matters that for every case of voter fraud prevented by this law, several hundred people are likely to be dissuaded or outright prevented from voting. And that means that the law doesn’t work. It has failed its goal, and should be scrapped, as it is making elections less representative of the will of the people, not more.
Why? Actually, wait, what? Let’s say a law disenfranchises 10 voters, while preventing one fraudulent vote. Are you saying that this is okay?
And again and again, you are wrong. So for you, X is 0? Prove it.
Gee whizzikers, Kevbo, why did you pick incidents from ACORN’s history that you could describe so nicely?
The point of my comparison was to show exactly what you’ve just shown: that when you want to support an organization, you choose ways to minimize its poor choices.
Why didn’t you mention, say, this, for ACORN:
-
When ACORN wanted to register voters in Nevada, they concocted a scheme to pay their workers for each name submitted, in violation of state election law.
-
When this scheme predictably produced many bogus registrations, they turned them in and didn’t day a word.
-
When the fakery came to light they obfuscated, denied, but ultimately pled guilty as an organization to the felony violation of state election law.
Hmmm???
If providing documentation for perfectly kosher voter id is easy, then why not prove it? Be the easiest thing ever, if their case is valid. Set up a hot line for people who claim to have such difficulty. A few volunteers with a few hours training should do the trick, yes?
Now, if the tighty righty claims are true, that phone won’t ring. Or at least not to any significant degree. And when it does ring, the voters issues are satisfied, and everybody is happy. Any of us could come up with a dozen ways to do this, its dead simple. And it would make a wonderful political talking point! “Hey, you guys bitched, we cooperated on a solution, and it turns out there is no problem!”. Solid gold.
So why don’t they? Because they don’t want to fix the problem, the problem is the whole point of the exercise. Take Florida. Please. The whole voter purge clusterfuck has been shown, conclusively, to be totally full of shit. Are they stopping, then? Slowing down, taking proper care because, after all, they totally love love love voter integrity and confidence? Nope, barreling right on ahead, full steam.
So, may we fairly conclude that partisan advantage is the point of these efforts, and voter integrity nothing more than a sham of legitimacy? Absent a cogent argument otherwise, I think we may.
Oh, and Anderson Cooper is gay. And Bricker is Catholic. Both of those facts have precisely the same about of bearing on this discussion, which is zip, zilch, zero, nada damn bit.
Which was their standard procedure. So “concocted a scheme” is a way to say it if you want to cast an error as nefarious. You lying twat.
It was their standard practice to turn in all signatures, since it is required by law. They did flag the ones they spotted that were hinky, didn’t they?
How did they obfuscate and deny? You mean like you’re obfuscating and denying facts in this very post? There must be a lawyer involved.
You aren’t a good person. Didn’t your parents even try to teach you right from wrong?
Err… This wasn’t just for Nevada. This was their MO nation-wide, and I think it’s fair to assume that they were simply caught off-guard by the Nevada law. Hell, when it turned out that this happened…
They pled guilty. Huh. Almost as if they didn’t know about the law, but decided to bear its penalties anyways, like a good, non-omnipresent organization would.
Bricker if I could write you a check as a lawyer to defend ACORN on these charges, it would be the easiest money you ever made. And you know it.
They had a lawyer. They entered a guilty plea under his advice, to avoid guilty verdicts for multiple felony counts. I doubt I could have gotten them a better deal.
He means the crap you spouted. Your statements barely resemble the truth at all!
No. That would have involved pleading to the indictment, some 39 counts spread among three people. Like any wrong-doer, they negotiated their misdeeds down with a plea.
To the contrary:
So, we now see that everything I said is exactly what happened.
But sure enough, someone said something that bore no resemblance to reality. And I bet long-time readers can guess who that was:
Was it?
Oopsies! Didn’t remember which lie to support, eh?
Assuming what you have posted is true, which isn’t a fair assumption, what we have is:
One member of ACORN did an incentive program in defiance of Nevada law. Are you suggesting that he did this though anything but ignorance?
Their lawyer denied everything.
They took their lumps in court.
So this is your example of malfeasance of the organization? Did ACORN try to cover anything up? Did it defend the actions of the dude?
And most importantly, you fucking liar, did ACORN cause voter fraud? The whole point ACORN was mentioned is to illustrate that conservatives still think ACORN is responsible for voter fraud. But in actuality, one member of the org, probably through ignorance, broke a local law.
That’s it. Breaking that law caused exactly zero people to cast fraudulent votes..
So, an interesting diversion into Bricker-Land, where lies and innuendo are the coin of the realm, but still, you utterly fall flat.
Yes.
So did their spokesperson. On their behalf, he said the claims were politically motivated – even though the officials were Democrats.
No, they fought the charges and negotiated a plea.
Yes, they tried to cover it up. And yes, they defended the “dude,” by getting him a lawyer and putting their spin machine to work to claim the charges were false. It worked: you just read Budget Player Cadet’s impassioned claim that this was a nationwide practice, didn’t you? Where do you think he got that idea?
I’m the liar? Budget Player Cadet’s post was just demolished point by point. I have said nothing but the truth.
I retract my previous statements regarding ACORN, it’s not my area of expertise. I’ll let someone else take this one.
Why? Was he doing it in secret? How did he keep his contractors quiet? Was it through threats?
Obviously he should have researched the laws. I’m guessing he’s just a dumb guy.
PR people throw up chaff. Surely, a lawyer, such as yourself, understands the benefits of admitting nothing.
Isn’t that the same thing? They didn’t stick to a non-guilty plea, so they admitted wrongdoing, right?
I thought that too. It’s difficult to know that, since on the right it was portrayed as a smoking gun for election stealing and on mainstream media, it was generally talked about as breaking election laws.
You started this whole thing by subtly pretending that this is about voter fraud.
No, it’s about a local election law that was broken by one man’s actions. He shouldn’t have done that, but it’s not voter fraud.
Remember, I pointed out that ACORN is still thought to have committed voter fraud by conservatives.
You then said, they were found guilty of violating election law.
You were dishonest. You were doing the exact thing that FOX News and RW Talk does, you craft misinformation that allows you to bat your eyes and say, “Oh noooo, I meant this…” when caught.
You’re a not an honest person. And it’s a shame, because of the conservatives on this board, you’ve got a fine mind. You might wonder if Shodan and Clothy are your wingmen, maybe you aren’t flying with the angels. 
Well, we’re just lucky he picked the weakest case to present, because he’s got oodles and gobs of such examples, he just brings up this one over and over and over because he’s being so easy on us!
I love how carefully worded this is! Its a masterpiece of Brickerism. Note how carefully it avoids questions of guilt and/or innocence! “Under his advice, to avoid guilty verdicts”. Love it to death! Note how carefully it implies guilt without actually stating it! They did it to avoid “guilty verdicts”.
TG, IANAL, but seems to me I’ve heard tell of lawyers advising clients to take plea deals when they were innocent of actual intent, but guilty of a technical violation. Better for all concerned, though not, strictly speaking, a shining example of justice.
Is this the only one you got, Bricker? Seems to me you’ve brought this exact same case up time and time again, with the same arguments and counter-arguments each time. Surely you must have literally dozens of such examples at your fingertips, since ACORN was such a thoroughly corrupt bunch of sleazeballs! Maybe you should bring a few of those, maybe a dozen or so, to counter the unfortunate impression that this is all you got, so you bring it up again and again and again…
I wait with bated breath to be devastated.
Uh huh. One dumb guy, eh? And Amy Busefink? One dumb gal?
Funny how this dumb guy made it to the post of Las Vegas field director, and this dumb gal made it to ACORN deputy regional director, huh? I can only imagine how high in the organization they might have gone with a modicum of smarts.
Of course. But you asked if they tried to cover it up. I pointed out they did, and now you ask me to concede that it’s normal to try to cover things like this up. Yes, it is – but then why did you ask?
Yes, they admitted the minimum necessary wrong-doing necessary to comply with thier plea. They did not come clean and admit all their felonious deeds.
Nothing remotely wrong or misinforming about what I said. You claimed ACORN didn’t commit voter fraud; I pointed out that they did commit election law fraud. For some reason that observation really bothered you.
And I notice the outright falsehood proffered by Budget Player Cadet seemingly don’t bother you at all, but my factually accurate statements really rile you up. You’re so concerned about hyper-accuracy that you leap on me for responding to your true statement with a different, also true statement. But the outright false statements flow by you like a mighty river.