How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Questions about ACORN   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ]
 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Questions about ACORN

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


50 posted 09-27-2009 08:02 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
So I could sue my father then for cutting off my allowance? I find that unlikely..


You could try but you wouldn't get very far. There is no legislative bill that I know of that prohibits giving you an allowance based on the presumption that you're school work is bad.

quote:
There is no bill preventing the Catholic organization from not donating.


I didn't think there was Mike. I said If there were such a bill then that bill could be called a bill of attainder.

You don't seem to be grasping this concept Mike. Perhaps I'm not explaining it clearly.

The government, your Father, Catholic organisations and anyone else you care to mention are free to give anyone, or not give anyone any amount they like for whatever reason they decide is reasonable.

However. The government cannot enact legislation to that effect if in doing so they prejudge the innocence or guilt of the party involved.

The government can say "we won't give any money to anyone convicted of a criminal offence" - that's reasonable and allows the judgement of who is and isn't a criminal to reside firmly where it belongs - In the courts.

Still not sure?

OK let's try coming at this from another angle.

If the government passed a bill that said that it was no longer going to fund the VA because it thought they were involved in voter fraud. Would that be a good law? Wouldn't you think that the government had slightly overstepped the mark a little? I would. The framers of you constitution would too - that's why they wrote the section prohibiting the government from doing it.

I don't really give two hoots whether ACORN gets funding or doesn't get funding, in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter. If there's a need for what they do another organisation will take up the slack. What bothers me is that in a country where you supposedly hold your laws and constitution in such high regard. Where you claim to mistrust every piece of legislation your government inflicts on you, you're eager and willing to open the door to a carte blanche invitation for your government to persecute any individual based on nothing more than a whim or accusation of wrongdoing.

"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist; Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist; Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist; Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew; Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me."

Martin Niemöller

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


51 posted 09-27-2009 08:26 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I grasp it up to a point. Ok, congress cannot take away funding to anyone no more than accused of a felony, without being convicted. OK....

On the other hand, congress can fund or not fund anyone they want. SOmeone puts in a request for funds....congress decides whether to fund them or not. Congress is under no obligation to fund ACORN for any specific period of time, no more than anyone else.

Now, if they can't refuse funding based on suspicion of guilt, what stops them from simply giving no reason at all, which they actually don't have to give? That would certainly be an easy way to avoid any problems, wouldn't it?

The VA was created by the government and financed with government funds. If you want to prove that the government created ACORN and assumed their funding responsibilities, I'll consider it a valid comparison.

The government can fire anyone in the VA organization since it is a government agency. Can they fire anyone in ACORN? The government can disband the VA. Can they disband ACORN? I think not...
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


52 posted 09-27-2009 10:17 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Mike,

          I simply didn't understand your last posting.  I'm not sure of what you're trying to ask or say, regardless of political point.  I simply didn't follow.

     The Bill of Attainder suggests that you can't go after somebody specific and in retrospect for things that were not crimes at the time involved, if I understand correctly.  Suspicion of guilt or massive dislike is not enough.

     If "they" don't have to give a reason, once funding was voted, then there would have to be a de-funding process if the funding was to be withdrawn.  

     It sounds as though you believe that such a process could be or even should be accomplished without debate or record of debate, and that the reasoning would not be fairly clearly laid out in that process, as it should be.  You may have, in your haste to rend ACORN, wished that we not live in a democracy, and that the government needs be run that way.

     Government input into ACORN has run, I believe, about 3.5 million dollars a year, totaling less that Halliburton has gotten from from the government in the course of a day.  Many of the contracts that Halliburton got from the country during the course of the last administration were no-bid contracts at a time when it certainly appeared that other contractors were able to bid against them.

     Let me see — oh yes, President Obama worked for them as a lawyer but doesn't seem to actually have any financial interest that I am aware of and has stayed pretty much clear of intervention in government bids and contracts on their behalf.  Vice-President Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, stepped down during his term in office, but maintained financial ties with them the whole time, and appears to have benefitted from the contracts they got while we was in office to the extent that they made his stock more valuable.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven

      

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


53 posted 09-27-2009 11:24 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I think indictments in several States and convictions in others, along with video tape evidence of workers advising people how to defraud the government, in at least 4 different States (other tapes will be forthcoming), is evidence enough that there is systemic corruption in the organization.

Fraud has always been a crime. It's not like Congress is just passing a new law making fraud a crime, and are going after Acorn to punish them for previous activities that are now condsidered criminal but weren't previously before the law was enacted.
Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


54 posted 09-27-2009 11:58 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

A bill of attainder will need three requirements.

A specific individual or group targeted.
Punishment.
No judicial trial.

From what I understand, most of the legislation deals with all groups involved in voter fraud, illegal campaign contributions, et al.  

Punishment-  this means criminal punishment, not civil penalties.  There is no vested right in funding from Congress.

The Court has to defer to the stated intent of Congress and can determine only with clearest proof.  That means not only all ties go to Congress, but there can't be any other logical interpretation.

There is a case I recall from law school where it was ruled it was not a bill of attainder for Congress to pass a law taking away someone's social security benefits for being deported.

I feel fairly comfortable in saying social security benefits can be argued to be a vested personal interest a lot easier than Congressional funding.

Clearly, the punishment does not meet the legal definition of punishment as defined in case law.  Civil penalties are not criminal punishment.

You can give a strained interpretation the defunding is a Bill of Attainder, but the Supreme Court will have to throw stare decisis to the wind to come to that result.

The Bill of Attainder issue is grasping at straws.

To me, the interesting question is why the Democrats are so quick to join in, expecially someone like Barney Frank who is such a strong supporter of ACORN.

This again, is just my opinion, but it would appear to me, the only logical explanation is they want the matter over with and do not want an investigation to delve into ACORN's ties with SEIU and the amount of money that is being funded contrary to federal law including campaign contributions.

I have served on boards of nonprofits before.  When someone steals five dollars, the matter is dealt with immediately.  You don't cover up the theft of a million dollars plus and keep the person on in a position of importance in the organization.

I am certain ACORN as a nonprofit was non-partisan and the million plus voter's they registered with the money from the Obama campaign contained a lot of McCain voters.

I am certain the numerous voter fraud convictions, indictments and investigations are all political witchhunts.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


55 posted 09-28-2009 12:04 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

AH, yes, Haliburton and Cheney makes another appearance. What a surprise. I don't see the connection unless you want to claim that Haliburton's actions influenced ACORN toward fraud and child pornography approval. Otherwise, it's Fingerpoint Lane once again.

Do I wish we did not live in a democracy? You tell me, Bob.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


56 posted 09-28-2009 12:07 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Thank you for the explanation, Tim, from a legal point of view. (you forgoet the smiley face at the end of your last two statements)
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


57 posted 09-28-2009 04:29 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

Tim,

Thanks for your post it's always good to have access to an expert, and good to see you posting - you don't do it enough.

I'm not overly familiar with American law, it's similar in many ways to English law while at the same time throwing up anomalies that tend to bite you in the rear, so your input is more than appreciated.

Given the above I'd be stupid not to concede to your opinion on this. However I do have a couple of questions if you don't mind and have time to consider them.

While researching the cases surrounding bills of attainder I came across one that seemed to suggest that civil as well as criminal punishments were prohibited.

"A bill of attainder, is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial and includes any legislative act which takes away the life, liberty or property of a particular named or easily ascertainable person or group of persons because the legislature thinks them guilty of conduct which deserves punishment."

Cummings v. Missouri (1867)

Is it possible to argue that the bills and amendments to defund Acorn constitute the removal of liberty given the above? In this case specifically the liberty to apply on an equal footing to receive grants and funding. You said in your post " There is no vested right in funding from Congress", while that's true is there not a vested right to have the liberty to apply for government funding?

Liberty:

The condition of being free from restriction or control.
Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference.

The second definition is a circular argument I readily admit, but the first and the third certainly suggest that ACORN's liberty to apply freely and equally for government grants and funding has been taken away.

Alexander Hamilton, perhaps the most famous and certainly the first, expert on the constitution seemed to to think so when he eplained why the constitution prohibits bills of attainder. An explantion that I believe is quite telling:

'Nothing is more common than for a free people, in times of heat and violence, to gratify momentary passions, by letting into the government principles and precedents which afterwards prove fatal to themselves. Of this kind is the doctrine of disqualification, disfranchisement, and banishment by acts of the legislature. The dangerous consequences of this power are manifest. If the legislature can disfranchise any number of citizens at pleasure by general descriptions, it may soon confine all the votes to a small number of partisans, and establish an aristocracy or an oligarchy; if it may banish at discretion all those whom particular circumstances render obnoxious, without hearing or trial, no man can be safe, nor know when he may be the innocent victim of a prevailing faction. The name of liberty applied to such a government, would be a mockery of common sense.'

U.S. v. Brown, (1965), would seem to enforce that notion - A case where penalties - namely the right to apply for, or be an employee of, a labour union - were withheld to any members of the communist party by legislation deemed to be a bill of attainder.

Is the right to apply for a job not similar enough to the right to apply for funding?

Could the Supreme Court take the above as applicable precedents? Even if they didn't isn't it possible for them to throw out stare decisis even if its relevant? As I understand it they've done it before, reversing over 130 previous rulings they'd made since the 1940's.

As I said I'm more than happy to defer to your knowledge in this area which I know exceeds mine by a country mile, but I would appreciate your views on the above.

.
Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


58 posted 09-28-2009 10:11 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

In simple non-legal terms, Cummings v Missouri stands for the proposition a criminal punishment labeled as a civil penalty is still a criminal punishment. (if it quacks like a duck...)

Cummings dealt with post civil war issues in which if the proper oath was not taken, preachers lost their right to preach.  The right to hold a job is a civil liberty.  Not the same as government funding.

ACORN can still operate and can get funds from private sources, either earning them, or contributions all they want.

The Brown case again deals with the right to hold positions in the union and obtaining jobs evem though you are a member of the communist party.  Not the same as government funding.

Can you argue your positions?   Sure, that is one thing about the law, you can argue anything you want.  Attorneys can argue totally illogical positions and sound fairly intelligent in doing so.

Other cases are more directly on point.

Can a Court reverse itself?  Sure, but highly unlikely in this case as in my view the law is clear.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


59 posted 09-29-2009 04:44 AM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjTiIpmufK8
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


60 posted 09-29-2009 02:53 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

Thanks for the reply Tim,

I really appreciate the time you took.

I think the "is it" - "isn't it" argument is probably going to drag on especially after reading this report which seems to open the door to the question to be raised at a higher level.

CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
The Proposed “Defund ACORN Act”: Is it a “Bill of Attainder?”
Kenneth R. Thomas
Legislative Attorney
September 22, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-5700 www.crs.gov
Congressional Research Service

Summary

On September 17, 2009, the House passed the “Defund ACORN Act” as part of H.R. 3221, 111th
Congress, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009. This Act would limit certain
organizations from receiving any federal contracts or grants, if the organization has ever been
indicted for a violation of various campaign finance or election laws; has lost a state corporate
charter for failure to comply with lobbying disclosure requirements; or has filed a fraudulent form
with any federal or state regulatory agency. The limitations would also apply to any organization
that has an employment or agency relationship with an individual indicted for a violation of
election law. Once excluded, the organization would never be eligible to receive federal contracts
or grants again.

In addition, the bill specifically provides for the application of the above criteria jointly and
severally to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (“ACORN”) and any
ACORN-related affiliates. Similar language added as amendments to appropriation bills in the
Senate would directly ban ACORN and its subsidiaries from receiving federal grants or contracts.
The argument has been made that these proposals would violate the prohibition on bills of
attainder found in Article I, § 9, cl. 3 of the Constitution.

The two main criteria which the courts would likely look to in order to determine whether
legislation is a bill of attainder are (1) whether “specific” individuals or entities are affected by
the statute, and (2) whether the legislation inflicts a “punishment” on those individuals. Under the
instant bills, the fact that ACORN and its affiliates are named in the legislation for differential
treatment would appear to meet a per se criteria for specificity.

The U.S. Supreme Court has also identified three types of legislation which would fulfill the
“punishment” prong of the test: (1) where the burden is such as has “traditionally” been found to
be punitive; (2) where the type and severity of burdens imposed are the “functional equivalent” of
punishment because they cannot reasonably be said to further “non-punitive legislative
purposes;” and (3) where the legislative record evinces a “congressional intent to punish.” The
withholding of federal contracts or grants does not appear to be a “traditional” punishment, nor
does the legislative record so far appear to clearly evince an intent to punish. The question of
whether the instant legislation serves as the functional equivalent of a punishment, however, is
more difficult to ascertain.

While the regulatory purpose of ensuring that federal funds are properly spent is a legitimate one,
it is not clear that imposing a permanent government-wide ban on contracting with or providing
grants to ACORN fits that purpose, at least when the ban is applied to ACORN and its affiliates
jointly and severally. In theory, under the House bill, the behavior of a single employee from a
single affiliate could affect not only ACORN but all of its 361 affiliates. Thus, there may be
issues raised by characterizing this legislation as purely regulatory in nature. While the Supreme
Court has noted that the courts will generally defer to Congress as to the regulatory purpose of a
statute absent clear proof of punitive intent, there appear to be potential issues raised with
attempting to find a rational non-punitive regulatory purpose for this legislation. Thus, it appears
that a court may have a sufficient basis to overcome the presumption of constitutionality, and find
that it violates the prohibition against bills of attainder.

Congressional Research Service


The report goes on in some detail for another 14 or so pages, the above being only the executive summary!

Given that there are, as I see it, reasonable arguments both for and against I think the wisest course is probably to wait and see how things play out and leave the legality of the legislation to be settled by the appropriate parties and processes.

I do however have one more question if you don't mind.

Do you believe that the Defund ACORN Bill will, as I suggested to Mike, affect other groups and organisations - unintended victims of the legislation?

.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


61 posted 09-29-2009 03:26 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Mike,

          I take it you haven't yet checked out J.M. video reference?

     It it seems all right for you to point fingers but not for anybody else.  You can say that ACORN is guilty of voter fraud and all sorts of things, but when others point back you find the position difficult.  Curious.

     You have not cited any convictions that ACORN has suffered, though Republicans have been trying to sink the organization since 2002.  The investigations have petered out, and there is no evidence of voter fraud by ACORN while the evidence for election fraud by the Republican Party, which we have discussed before, is large.

     You have demonized ACORN.  Its job is to register voters and the majority of the voters it has registered seem top be young.  Many of them are people of color.  These facts alone seem to be enough to account for the difficulty the Republicans have with ACORN since the Republican demographic is older and white.  Where are all these myriads of voter fraud cases, Mike?

     Could it be that they don't exist or that their numbers are so small that have no effect at all?

     More important than the cases, show me the convictions.  Show me cases where the Republican have actually proved their case.  Show me the myriads of cases that the Republican Justice Department was able to push to successful conclusion over eight years in power that would prove your point.    Give me citations from good sources that prove it.  Beck backed by O'Reilly supported by Hanity doesn't actually seem to be the most dependable chain of sources that one could hope for.  How about The Christian Science Monitor or the Economist or The Washington Post?

BK
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


62 posted 09-29-2009 03:28 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

More on the demonization of ACORN: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#33013202
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


63 posted 09-29-2009 05:55 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Many of them are people of color.  These facts alone seem to be enough to account for the difficulty the Republicans have with ACORN since the Republican demographic is older and white.

If I may borrow Jennifer's favorite word of late, that is one despicable  comment, Bob. Perhaps you should call on the peanut farmer and have lunch together discussing those darn racist republicans. I have pointed out before that top officers of ACORN are, guess what?, white...or had you forgotten that? Screaming race is the last act of desperation. Before I would have thought that to be beneath you but now I don't know where that limit is.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


64 posted 09-29-2009 06:03 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

Not despicable and not racist. I understood perfectly what Bob meant as I'm sure most readers would. Your accusation has no merit, Balladeer, me thinks it's just another one of your distractions.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


65 posted 09-29-2009 06:04 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Jennifer, you are presenting a video from MSNBC and Rachel Maddow, an Air America stewardess, as some kind of....what? Left wing propaganda? Ok, I'll accept it for that. Seems a little strange that you, who blast Limbaugh, Hannity and the right wing talk show hosts, would present her as if that is supposed to be something meaningful. Certainly it may be meaningful to you because it supports your feelings but don't expect it to be more than the propaganda it is to us, any more than Rush could influence you.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


66 posted 09-29-2009 06:11 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Jenn to the rescue! Ok, the republicans are old and white. ACORN is made up of people of color. "These facts alone seem to be enough to account for the difficulty the Republicans have with ACORN"...no, nothing racial there. How could I think such a thing??? Right...

The distraction is bringing race into it. WHen you have Carter, Waters and other democrats complaining that support for Obama's health care plan is dwindling because of racist feelings instead of the fact that they just don't really trust it, THAT"S the distraction... and it's an intentional one. Bob is simply following suit.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


67 posted 09-29-2009 06:16 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

Oh please, Rachel is a Rhodes Scholar with a Doctorate in Political Science. Comparing her to coke heads like Rush (and Beck) and a light weight like Hannity is laughable. Listen to what she says, check out the facts for yourself. The real propaganda is coming from the right. Take off your blinders.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


68 posted 09-29-2009 06:22 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

Anyway, your lucky night. I've got work to do. Later.
Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 02-20-2003
Posts 3696
Saluting with misty eyes


69 posted 09-29-2009 06:24 PM       View Profile for Ringo   Email Ringo   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Ringo

Jennifer- Respectfully, I feel that your arguments are losing their credibility every time you post. You end up conceding the point that you are attempting to distance yourself from.

Here are my reasonings for saying so:
quote:
...because reporting on the ACORN sting wasn’t fair and balanced especially on Fox....during interviews with O’Keefe and Giles, Fox opinion show hosts never pursued the question of how many times the dynamic duo of worse than B film actors had been turned away by ACORN workers.

Jennifer, not one of us debating the affirmative for the Conservative side of the aisle has ever made the statement that we believe that the opinion shows (such as Hannity, Beck, Limbaugth, whathaveyou) were fair and balanced. We have also all conceded that, by their very nature, opinion shows are very much not balanced. We have all stated that we believe that they are the thoughts that people have after digesting the news with their own set of values and life experiences. It is the actual reporting of shows such as: Fox and Friends, America's News Room, Fox Business, etc that is reporting what ACTUALLY happened, and not what the reporters feel about it. Making a statement that "Fox opinion show hosts never... (reported fair and balanced)" actually makes our point for us.

To make your point about FOx News being biased and unfair, you give us a link to a clip of a liberal MSNBC OPINION host who spends 3 minutes talking about the "false accusations" against ACORN,and the next 7 minutes talking about the corrupt Republican administration that is no longer in power, and has absolutely no control over anything involved in the American way of life any longer, and who cannot change anything at all that is happening.

Jennifer, I still read your poetry from time to time as my schedule allows. You are a valued member of this community for your contributions, and your willingness to be a moderator when very, very few members are willing to step up to the plate; however, a respectful suggestion would be to word your posts in such a manner that it does not agree with those whom you are attempting to prove wrong.

As for the comments about the cokeheads... well, if you were paying attention, you would realize that our little Mr. Beck (which Mike and others have publicly stated in this forum that they disagree with) is a recovering alcoholic. As resorting to baseless personal insults is the last bastion of a lost fight, please use the proper ones.

Oh, one last thing...
I have a former friend of mine who is a triple major. He has degrees in Theology, Business, and Social work. All of the Masters. He paid his own way through college with an inheritance that he received as an 16 year old senior, and then used his scholarships and grants and loands and such to invest in the stock market. I would be willing to say that he is a scholar, and a very educated man, and with his pedigree (graduating at the age of 16, and knowing what to do with his money, and how to work the system) a very intelligent man, would you not?
Does that mean I should automatically bow to his superior intellect? He has a degree in Theology, Business, and Social Work.... and yet, was fired from a foster care agency, and a men's homeless shelter for incompetence.
I am not saying that the lovely and talented Ms. Maddow is incompetent.... far from it. SHe seems to have gathered a great many unto the first church of Rachael. I am just not seeing where I have to prostrate myself to her because she was smart enough to pass a few tests.


Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting, "WHAT A RIDE

[This message has been edited by Ringo (09-29-2009 08:40 PM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


70 posted 09-29-2009 06:29 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Of course. Maddow (left wing talk show host) is a scholar. Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity (right wing talk show hosts) are coke-heads.

Is that statement supposed to represent the amount of thought and intelligence you put into your comments? I hope not.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


71 posted 09-29-2009 08:32 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

If you feel like it, Jennifer, you can check out the hypocracy of your Rhodes Scholar and the organization she works for..
http://politicalintegritynow.com/2009/09/still-think-socialist-is-the-new-n-word-watch-this-video-and-you-wont/
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


72 posted 09-29-2009 09:50 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

Hi Ringo, I’m still waiting for links to those videos you mentioned. Remember the ones where you saw with your very own eyes ACORN members beating up a guy selling t-shirts and being let in through a back door at a townhall while non-ACORN members were kept out. Put up those links and then maybe we can start talking about credibility.

Balladeer, if you’re implying that Beck and Rush were never drug addicts, you’re more out of the loop than I thought you were. Grinch has asked you several times to back up your claims with facts. So far you haven’t given us any. Maybe you’ve been watching the wrong network and reading on the wrong sites or something where facts aren’t nearly as important as fear and hate mongering lies?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


73 posted 09-29-2009 09:59 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Jennifer, there are no facts that you would accept. Whenever they are presented by either Denise or I, you simply ignore them. That's your track record.

No, I've never heard that either Limbaugh or Hannity took coke. As far as drugs, since I'm taking them right now, I must assume that, in your eyes, I'm a coke-head, too. I can live with that.

Check out that Rhodes Scholar video yet...or is that to be ignored, also?
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


74 posted 09-29-2009 11:54 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

Yep, Balladeer, I wasted my time and watched the video. Indeed there will always be fringe elements cranking up hatred with ridiculous accusations, comparisons and threats. The difference as I see is that those we’re seeing acting out at tea parties, townhalls and such are not only just the usual fringe element of ring wing conservatives but also, as was mentioned in the Rolling Stone article, (BTW, did you read that Balladeer or are you going to ignore it?) conservative funded and orchestrated groups whose purpose seems to be to cause disruption and incite hatred and violence. I’m sorry you can’t see how dangerous that is and condone it with your silence.

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Questions about ACORN   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors