None of that is true. None of it. The films were edited to make it look that way. The ACORN people did not do what he claimed. There have been court cases in several jurisdictions. None of them corroborated OKeefe. It was a made up story made to please righties. It was a shameful and hateful farce. The real meat does not stand. The story has become that OKeefe lied about all of it. he was dishonest about all of it.
Even so, it would be advice that would help prevent a far greater crime. Running a brothel in a nominal sense is not the same as actually pimping people out, and is a far cry from child prostitution. In fact, they’d have been trying to *prevent *child prostitution.
I think anyone would be hard-pressed to do anything *other *than what the ACORN workers did, within that situation.
And you believe him. Despite all the evidence that shows he is a lying little toad bent on pursuing a career as a Hannity/Beck wannabe, you believe him. You believe that a couple of (apparently) urban black women, who might be expected to know a pimp from a box of Pampers, believed him when he said he was a pimp, and consciously assisted him in breaking the law?
I am, as are many here, aware that you pride yourself on your non-partisan views, believing that a lack of partisan perspective makes your analysis more acute. I don’t share that view, but you are welcome to it. In this particular instance, your devotion to even-handed non-partisanship has led you to embrace an absurdity.
The Attorney hired by Acorn to investigate them would beg to differ. From the NYT piece:
Emphasis added.
So I’m let to ponder. Do I believe some guy name “gonzomax” on the internet, or do I believe the NYT Public Editor and the Attorney hired by Acorn. Tough choice!
Sure it does. It needs some actual, verifiable evidence that this occurred. If you’re aware that such evidence exists, please provide a cite.
What? These guys had to pimp that story around* numerous ACORN offices before they could find someone to say that. Others told the girl to seek legal advice or called the cops.
*pun intended
Read the post above.
If the ACORN employees were advising a pimp on the means to an illegal end, would this sentence appear?
Hilarious. the tapes were admittedly heavily edited and tampered with. The conversations admittedly did not take place as the tapes imply. Some of the ACORN workers called the cops, but you believe that this one tiny snippet from one office may have been unedited (of course you still don’t know the context), and on that basis, you’re willing to say that anything at ALL meaningful was exposed about ACORN?
I thought you were more intellectually honest than that?
You have provided nothing. The O’Keefe tapes are entirely inadmissable. What else have you got?
Is that illegal?
If you think it is criminal, then your case falls apart: prosecutors who reviewed the tapes declined to press charges and even exonerated them for criminal misconduct.
So any allegations of criminal activity that use the O’Keefe tapes as evidence are false. That said, civil laws may have been broken, but they had nothing to do with O’Keefe’s intentional deceptions.
But if you are saying ACORN wasn’t well run… well, that’s another story.
Those taking O’Keefe’s claims at face value owe an apology to ACORN and this message board. Props to Khadaji for stepping up to the plate. Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate. For our fellow fighter of ignorance was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found. Alas, it seems that this party will be a small one: too many modern conservatives remain emotionally attached to their pre-conceptions and can’t bear to part with them.
Okay, but the point is that even this meager instance of indiscretion is not actually immoral. So, as with most right-wing myths, it is not only a lie, but the exact *opposite *of the truth.
The original lie was that ACORN workers were facilitating child prostitution. In reality, those workers that proceeded to give advice after hearing this story were only doing so out of concern for the supposed victims–they felt that having the children be kept in a house that was only nominally a brothel was better than them being kept in an actual brothel and being forced to engage in intercourse.
I guess the sheer amount of bullshit coming from the right has reached eye level for you. Like 'luci said, sometimes being even-handed traps you in the fallacy of the balanced middle.
Admissable or not, they were never provided in the original, unedited form. Such an action would have been a total slam-dunk for the O’Keefe admirers, if they had such, we may surely depend they would have provided it with banners flying and an orchestra of gloating tubas.
I don’t know, but it’s not what you want from a group receiving federal $$.
It wasn’t a lie. I think you’re reaching if you think most people are going to buy the lesser of two evils hypothesis here.
I never really got involved in any of the ACORN debates here, I don’t think. I never thought much of the story, to tell the truth. I’m just pointing out that the OP of this thread is an idiot. He claims the NYT has “detracted” their story, when they clearly did not (retract it). The Public Editor made his case, but the OP is still insisting he is right. Then you get the knee-jerk lefties here giving him a pass because they can’t bring themselves to admit that ACORN fucked up.
If that’s being too even-handed, then I don’t intend to change.
First, you need to prove this happened, which you haven’t done yet, but just for the sake of argument, it wasn’t the “group” that did this, it was one employee, and even that one employee was offering well-intended advice in what she thought was a tough situation). Pretending it was ACORN acting as an institution is Sean Hannity territory.
Cite?
How did ACORN fuck up, exactly? Cite? ACORN as ACORN didn’t do a goddamn thing.
Here, let me emphasize a different part of that quote. Not that it’ll change your mind. Just so you know, I’m doing this so other people don’t swallow your BS. I don’t really care what you think:
Ok, that’s NOTHING unless we see the full, unedited tape. It’s not admissable as is. Sorry.
And even if taken at face value, that’s still not an incident even worth yawning at, much less any kind of institutional malfeasance by ACORN. What else have you got? Please provoide some actual proof of PROVABLE institutional criminality or corruption by ACORN or give it up.
I already said I didn’t think much of the story. But the OP is still an idiot, and he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. The NYT is sticking with the main part of the story, and his call for poster here to apologize is idiotic. If anyone wants to side with him, be my guest.
I agree with you, Dio.
I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I’m sure the worst parts of the conversations were chosen to be released to the public. And there is no denying that what was said was said on tape by the employees offering tax dodging advice, etc.
However, I would like to see the raw video released as well. Nothing will really change if that were to happen though. Each side would choose whatever content validated their ideological bent and say “SEE!!! SEE!!!”
Go to the link to the NYT story. The Public Editor says he reviewed what he believes to be the unedited tapes. He’s convinced that the most damning part of the story, as printed in the NYT, is legit.