There are Dopers who ran with the anti-ACORN video that righty O’Keefe showed to the world. It was bullshit. He never went into any ACORN office dressed in that insulting garb. He wore a pair of Dockers and a dress shirt. Then he told them he was a law student trying to protect his hooker girlfriend from an aggressive pimp. He then collected enough tape so he could edit them in a way that made ACORN look bad. The righties on this board and FOx ran with this story in a blind rage. It was obviously blind. The pimp outfit was so absurd that it would only convince righty suburbanites living in gated communities. It was laughable. It was a lie. The NYT finally printed a detraction. We are waiting patiently for one from the Dopers who should have known better, but bought the story because it might hurt the left and the blacks. Shame on you.
Then a Federal Judge ruled the drying up of funds was a bill of Attainder. Which some board member insisted it was not. ACORN has been destroyed by lies . But at least the Times wrote an apology. I am waiting for the righties on this board to do as much.
It’s “retraction”.
I think you should do a little research, and quote some specific posts you want them to apologize for. I’m not getting that the clothes were that big a part of the story, but I didn’t participate much in those threads, so I could be wrong.
I hope you have great breath control.
That damn librul media again.
The clothes are beside the point.
(Bolding mine.)
Don’t you know that it’s perfectly ok if Republicans/right-wingers/teabaggers lie to mislead and inflame people? It’s only wrong if Democrats/liberals do it.
Get with the program!
ACORN’s been totally blameless in every situation the assholes have tried to inflame. Wait, not tried. Did. ACORN’s history now, and the good works they did are forgotten, and there’s no one to pick up the slack. R/RW/T’s can rest easy, proud and smug in the knowledge that their racist lies did the job.
I am genuinely sorry for everything I said.
Well, this is interesting. Wired just ran a story in this month’s issue about Breitbart and O’Keefe and how the liberal media demonizes them and the ACORN thing was a big part of the story.
Then again, knowing Wired, they might have just known that the NYT was going to print a retraction and decided to print the story knowing it would get people reading.
Hell, I had a couple minutes. A little stroll down memory lane:
The Chicago mob is getting desperate (Scott Brown 52%, Coakly 46%).
I expect a charge of “voter fraud”-look for demands for recount, Acorn workers ready to stuff ballots.
Given that they live in the deep blue sea, I am sure ACORN is eager to register them to vote, so that seems fair.
This is no witch hunt. ACORN workers were shown to have turned in falsified voter registrations and dumped them a short time before the deadline.
Dale Rathke embezzled $1M which was covered up by ACORN executives.
ACORN workers seem willing to help people hide income from the IRS and help a pimp and hooker set up a brothel.
The Senate Finance Committee report definitely suggests that money from the tax-exempt arms of ACORN is being used by the political arms.
The wrongdoing of the individual workers does not necessarily mean that ACORN as a whole is at fault. But the workers wrongdoing, along with potential wrongdoing by ACORN, suggests that the organization should be investigated if they want to continue to receive tax dollars. They can do whatever they want to do, just don’t use tax money.
Then how are the defense contractors harmed?
In any event, even if the bill specifically refuses further funding for ACORN, by name, it’s not a bill of attainder. If the bill seeks to scoop back money already paid, or prohibits the government from paying ACORN for work already performed, then it is.
You’re being awfully blase’ about actual voter intimidation now that it’s your side being accused - just like you seem to be awfully blase’ about vote fraud being perpetrated by ACORN.
ACORN has been involved in voter fraud and intimidation tactics for a long time. Some ACORN members were charged with this in the last election, as well.

The NYT finally printed a detraction.
In fact, according to the article you linked to, the New York Times has not printed a retraction or correction or apology, and is defending that decision.

In fact, according to the article you linked to, the New York Times has not printed a retraction or correction or apology, and is defending that decision.
Oh, now I know what a “detraction” is. It’s when you don’t print a retraction.

In fact, according to the article you linked to, the New York Times has not printed a retraction or correction or apology, and is defending that decision.
It was a “correction,” rather than a “retraction.”
1) The Meaning of the Word 'And’
The most recent article in dispute, a January 30th feature article by Jim Rutenberg and Campbell Robertson, following on O'Keefe's recent federal felony arrest for allegedly attempted to "maliciously interfere" with the phone system of Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA), described O'Keefe as having "made his biggest national splash last year when he dressed up as a pimp and trained his secret camera on counselors with the liberal community group Acorn." Hoyt appears to have looked at only that one article initially, and stood behind it because, as he wrote [emphasis his]: **"The story says O'Keefe dressed up as a pimp and trained his hidden camera on Acorn counselors. It does not say he did those two things at the same time."** [:rolleyes:] While trying to give every benefit of the doubt, I responded that even if one accepts the notion that that wording was simply exceedingly misleading, there was no way to similarly justify Shane's earlier reports, as linked above.
That’s just one of the NY Times’ weaselings. See the link above for more and more detailed analysis.
So, the New York Times finally ran a correction. But after six weeks of “considering” the errors in its own reporting, the so called paper of record’s correction of its misleading ACORN story, came way, way, WAY to late.
The Times’ correction ran the same day that the anti-poverty group ACORN called it quits, after a year under attack – and a day after the paper’s public editor wrote that yes indeed, the paper has “mistakenly reinforced falsehoods” from right wing activists against the group.
Several articles since September about the troubles of the community organizing group Acorn referred incorrectly or imprecisely to one aspect of videotaped encounters between Acorn workers and two conservative activists that contributed to the group’s problems.
In the encounters, the activists posed as a prostitute and a pimp and discussed prostitution with the workers. But while footage shot away from the offices shows one activist, James O’Keefe, in a flamboyant pimp costume, there is no indication that he was wearing the costume while talking to the Acorn workers.
The errors occurred in articles on Sept. 16 and Sept. 19, 2009, and on Jan. 31 of this year. Because of an editing error, the mistake was repeated in an article in some copies on Saturday. (Go to Article)

In fact, according to the article you linked to, the New York Times has not printed a retraction or correction or apology, and is defending that decision.

Oh, now I know what a “detraction” is. It’s when you don’t print a retraction.
Here is an article in NYT Op-Ed section:
But I am satisfied that The Times was wrong on this point, and I have been wrong in defending the paper’s phrasing. Editors say they are considering a correction.
The New York Times published an article wherein it was stated that President Obama wore a Nixon mask as he tore apart the living bodies of several babies before an alter of Moloch, and feasted upon their still beating hearts. We note that there is no evidence whatsoever that President Obama has ever worn a Nixon mask, or that he owns one. The Times regrets the error…
And from that Op-Ed piece, the real meat of the story stands:
Acorn’s supporters appear to hope that the whole story will fall apart over the issue of what O’Keefe wore: if that was wrong, everything else must be wrong. The record does not support them.
<snip>
FAIR said that in Brooklyn, O’Keefe and Giles seemed to be telling Acorn staffers that “they are attempting to buy a house to protect child prostitutes from an abusive pimp.” That’s right, but FAIR left out the part about their clear intention to operate a brothel, which the Acorn workers seemed to take in stride, with one warning: “Don’t get caught, ’cause it is against the law.”
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7716 The Times apology was weak but came after the story I cited. Here is the Brad Blog arguing with the Times about what a bullshit story bit was. Nobody can actually back up anything the O’Keefe movie said. You would have to horribly slanted to accept the story when it first came out., but be living in mentally gated community of the mind not to be able to see the entire expose was a lie. The fact that O’Keefe got arrested for messing with a Democrat governors phone system is just more to show what he is. But i still think a Doper apology is in order.
Actually, no, none of it stands since O’Keefe has never turned over the full, unedited tapes, and since what he has submitted publicly has been proven to be tampered and falsified. the ACORN employees have said they thought the kid was joking and played along as part of the joke. The parts of the tapes whch would make it clear they thought it was a joke were edited out. Other parts of the tape show O’Keefe’s voice being overdubbed to make it appear as though the employees are responding to different questions than what he was actually asking.
Anyone who wants to seriously defend this garbage needs to pony up the full, unedited tapes or shut the fuck up. What the right did to ACORN was truly despicable, knowingly dishonest (all you righties know damned well it was a load of shit), and transparently racist.
I can’t wait for this O’Keefe tool to get handed a little single-serving packet of grape jelly on his first day in a federal penitentary and told exactly what he needs to do with it.

And from that Op-Ed piece, the real meat of the story stands:
Sure, but the grisly connective tissue holding it together is slowly melting in the warm, moist, oven of truth, leaving a delicious pot of spicy, shredded news.
Wait, why are we still talking about O’Keefe? He’s been thrown to the wolves in the Louisiana penal system. Dr. Jack Cassell is your new hero, you should be devoting all your efforts towards defending him.

In fact, according to the article you linked to, the New York Times has not printed a retraction or correction or apology, and is defending that decision.
In fact, that story came before the retraction. The retraction did come.

Sure, but the grisly connective tissue holding it together is slowly melting in the warm, moist, oven of truth, leaving a delicious pot of spicy, shredded news.
Nope. The issue was giving advice to someone who was asking how to break the law. It doesn’t need any “connective tissue”.