Liking the poor.
It was working, that was their crime. Small ball politics, like small ball poker, not splashy, not even very interesting. Register a few thousand here, another few thousand over there, nobody really paid much attention.
Until the Republican brought out their sophisticated gerrymander plan, carefully drawing districts so that R would win, but just barely, in more places than they lost, thus leveraging a non-majority into a safe majority. Then, all of a sudden, those few thousand here and there was a problem, so ACORN had to go.
ACORN was murdered. Because it scared them. Because Saul Alinsky was right, and the snotty leadership who thought him old-fashioned and out of touch didn’t listen. Because the R plan depended on carefully manufactured voting districts, and ACORN was the tiny little monkey wrench in the carefully crafted “well-oiled machine”. So they killed it.
I get the impression he knows very little, FULL STOP.
And some things ARE that simple. No matter what amount of bullshit you try to to shovel over it.
The CA AG’s office reviewed the unedited tapes. Here’s what they think it established:
They go on to say they found these discussions “highly inappropriate” though not illegal.
The law firm that ACORN hired to review the issue came to similar conclusions:
So some ACORN employees said some inappropriate and unprofessional things but they took no actions illegal or otherwise. If that’s your position, I’m in agreement with you.
However, I think that with any large organization you could find a handful of employees to say some inappropriate and unprofessional things. I don’t think ACORN was especially bad in this regard.
Maybe, maybe not. See again the quote (in my prior post) from the ACORN-hired law firm which reviewed the issue and seemed to conclude otherwise in saying “the videos represent the byproduct of ACORN’s longstanding management weaknesses, including a lack of training, a lack of procedures, and a lack of on-site supervision”. They also said (in the paragraph preceding the one I quoted) that
But that’s not what’s most on point here. What’s most on point is that O’Keefe was onto something, and while he depicted things as being worse than they were, it’s not like the whole thing was concocted out of the whole cloth (as many partisans here have tried to claim).
What’s relevant is when O’Keefe releases something new. Can it be assumed that it’s 100% bogus based solely on the fact that “it’s just O’Keefe”, or is it worth looking at it carefully - certainly more carefully than an expose put out by a reputable media organization - but nonetheless allowing for the possibility that it just might contain something? Others in this thread have maintained the first position. I disagree.
The AG also concluded:
Again, if you want to hang to the past and incomplete timeline, it is not my problem that you look also as the gullible people that continue to swallow what O’Keefe is spewing. He was not really onto something, he was making something as the evidence later showed.
But the thing he was onto was that some employees of ACORN could be tricked into saying stupid things.
The narrative that ACORN was a criminal organization was concocted out of whole cloth. He tricked some people into saying some unprofessional things and tried to spin that into the entire organization being corrupt. He can be dismissed out of hand because what he presented had only a passing resemblance to the actual truth.
What he tried to spin it into is irrelevant. Bottom line is that his videos did uncover things, both about the specific people in them and about the organization generally, that were not known prior to them being released.
Trying to deflect attention from that by pointing out that he overreached is not rational.
“Overreached”… the new “lied.”
What would you consider lying about what you are doing then lying about what the results are to be?
Unknown things, but fake.
Nope, what is insane is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results*. As it was shown already with what O’Keefe tried to do with that Female CNN reporter, giving O’Keefe so many chances to feed you and the right with bullshit and continuing to eat it is IMHO a definition of insanity.
*attributed to Einstein, but he never did say it, the line comes from addiction treatment groups from the 80’s. One can think that the right is just addicted to misleaders like O’Keefe.
Yes, ACORN had management weaknesses. However, many organizations have management weaknesses. There is no reason to believe ACORN was especially bad in this area or even atypical.
If the same approach was tried at the next Republican National Convention, I wonder what the results might yield?
Good lord.
If you keep fucking that chicken any more the poor thing’s gonna burst into flames.
Your puzzling, vague defence of a contemptible little troll amounts to “But look over here at exhibit A!” < Points to a pile of bullshit labled Exhibit A. >
Must you?
If you didn’t know beforehand that some people are so conflict averse that they’ll say anything if they think it’ll end an uncomfortable situation, well, now you know. If you didn’t know beforehand that some of those people worked for ACORN, well, now you know.
Nothing else was uncovered.
Now, if he’d shown that actual criminals were relying on ACORN for advice, or that actual crimes had been committed with ACORN’s help, that’d be the kind of thing that a real expose does.
But we’ve been over this. You’re determined to believe that showing some people are a combination of foolish, gullible, and conflict averse is an important revelation, and that this is the kind of thing that actual documentarians do. I don’t see any room on your part to educate yourself, so keep on fuckin that chicken.
I guess I haven’t drunk enough left-wing Kool-Aid. Maybe one day …
An enforced error by the right wing sources of information, the truth potions have been branded an anathema to the conservatives by their own right wing sources of information. Nice racket.
If you only would reflect a little you would see that being aware of what is more accurate is not supposed to be just accessed by liberals, progressives or independents.
As the AG said, the “investigation revealed facts which were not reflected in the recordings”.
Perhaps because you’re too full of something else?