Questions about ACORN - pipTalk Forums

How to Join	Member's Area	Private Library	Search	Sanctuary		Login
Main Forums	Discussion	Tech Talk	Mature Content	Archives	A home without a wall, Our haven without ends, A circle we all call Our Family of Friends!

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

0 posted 2009-09-25 12:41 PM

     I got a fund raiser in my e-mail from Media Matters.  I usually try to avoid bringing sources slanted my direction into these forums as a matter of principle.  This one raised some questions that I'd been wondering about on my own and had mentioned in previous posts on the subject but they offered some details I didn't have.

     I wanted some reaction from my friends on the right, the left and in the center about this — to me at least — new set of views about ACORN and the new information supplied.

     Thoughtful is better for my purposes than not, but anything you have to offer is appreciated.

quote:

In a new study released yesterday, Media Matters for America methodically exposes how both Beck and Hannity have spent years obsessively attacking ACORN under the guise of exposing corruption at an organization that receives government funding. Consider the following staggering numbers:

On Beck's and Hannity's respective television programs combined, ACORN was mentioned 1,502 times between May 8, 2006, and September 18, 2009. More than 1,500 times. Remember that ACORN has not been charged with any wrongdoing. Not only that, but the organization has been awarded just $53 million in federal funding over the past 15 years -- an average of $3.5 million per year.

Compare that to the coverage Beck and Hannity gave to Jack Abramoff, former Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH), Blackwater, Halliburton, and Kellogg, Brown, and Root (KBR) -- stories of well-documented political scandals and of corruption by companies that have received thousands of times more money from the government than ACORN has in the past 15 years. Abramoff and Ney were involved in influence peddling corruption that reached the highest levels of the Bush administration and Republican-controlled Congress. The aforementioned military contractors have all been involved in major controversies and scandals, some of which reportedly contributed to the deaths of U.S. troops, contractors, and Iraqi civilians alike. Combined, these contractors have been awarded at least $25 billion in contracts since 2001.

So how many times were these names mentioned on Beck's and Hannity's programs?

Abramoff and Ney: 62 times
Blackwater/Xe: four times
Halliburton/KBR: 43 times

In other words, Beck's and Hannity's programs combined were approximately 35 times more likely to discuss ACORN than any of the military contractors. They were also 24 times more likely to discuss ACORN than Abramoff and Ney.

Beck and Hannity have been willing to run with any story that accuses ACORN of corruption, even if the accusations remain unproven and the details were gathered using ethically and legally questionable tactics. But as we show in our study, these two hosts didn't lift a finger to report on the massive cases of corruption involving prominent military contractors and Republicans in Congress.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

1 posted 2009-09-25 05:38 AM

Maybe Beck & Hannity primarily focus on issues that the 'main stream media' refuse to even mention? Just a thought.

JenniferMaxwell

Member Elite

since 2006-09-14

Posts 2423

2 posted 2009-09-25 06:42 AM

Maybe Beck and Hannity haven't a clue what fair and balanced means and focus primarily on topics that fuel the anti-Obama, birther, czar-er, death panel hysterics.
http://www.newshounds.us/

Ron

Administrator

Member Rara Avis

since 1999-05-19

Posts 8669
Michigan, US

3 posted 2009-09-25 08:39 AM

quote:
In other words, Beck's and Hannity's programs combined were approximately 35 times more likely to discuss ACORN than any of the military contractors.

So?

I'm about a thousand times more likely to talk about my kids than your kids. That's probably because I'm a little more interested in mine than yours. I honestly can't believe anyone would really have a problem with that?

Fortunately for all of us, everything comes out in the wash. Since you're going to be equally more likely to talk about your offspring than mine, between the two of us both sets of kids will get plenty of air time.

p.s. Just because I talk about my children all the time, it doesn't necessarily follow that I'm telling the absolute truth about them all the time. I might exaggerate. Just a little.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

4 posted 2009-09-25 09:27 AM

You can't be serious, Bob. With all of the things the network media has completely ignored or downplayed (which have been well-documented on threads here), someone is complaining that FOX has not given enough coverage to the things network news covers? That's a hilarious thing...

Perhaps I could give the same response you gave to the lack of ACORN coverage on network news....they didn't consider it newsworthy enough. If that worked for you, shouldn't it work for me?

FOX covers them because no one else has the journalistic integrity to do so. Media Matters is whining because ACORN got caught and exposed? Tough cookies. FOX did not initiated the "stings" against ACORN. They simply reported them, something the networks didn't do. Ask yourself why. Ask yourself why network news reported nothing on the cap and trade bill as it sailed through the House, why they reported nothing on the billions of pork slipped into the stimulus package, why they said almost nothing about the scandals involving Democrats over the years and yet they would make Haliburton a household word just because of Cheney's involvement in it.

I can assure you that, if there were a Republican sitting in the Oval Office right now, you would see a remarkable change in what network news covers and things like ACORN would be getting top billing. What do we get now? George S asking Obama about ACORN and getting a response like "Acorn? I haven't followed that closely. They get federal funding? I didn't know that."...and then it gets dropped. That's what you get from network news. It's good for the country that we DO have FOX, believe me.

Btw, if you want to see the school children in NJ singing a song praising Barack Obama, go to FOX. If it had been to Bush, you could have gone to any network news station

JenniferMaxwell

Member Elite

since 2006-09-14

Posts 2423

5 posted 2009-09-25 10:41 AM

“Acorn? I haven't followed that closely. They get federal funding? I didn't know that”

Balladeer, you have misquoted the President of the United States.

STEPHANOPOULOS:  How about the funding for ACORN?

OBAMA:  You know, if -- frankly, it's not really something I've followed closely.  I didn't even know that ACORN was getting a whole lot of federal money.

STEPHANOPOULOS:  Both the Senate and the House have voted to cut it off.

OBAMA:  You know, what I know is, is that what I saw on that video was certainly inappropriate and deserves to be investigated.

STEPHANOPOULOS:  So you're not committing to -- to cut off the federal funding?

OBAMA:  George, this is not the biggest issue facing the country.  It's not something I'm paying a lot of attention to.

Perhaps the President was putting things in the proper perspective including when he said “a whole lot of federal money”.

"The amount of money that ACORN has received in the past 20 years altogether is roughly equal to what the taxpayer paid to Halliburton each day during the war in Iraq."

Nearly 54 million a DAY to a company that not only defrauded the government at tax payer expense but whose subsidiaries Dyncorp and KBR actually were involved in human trafficking and a child sex slave ring.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

6 posted 2009-09-25 10:50 AM

Yes, Jennifer, as I said "something like..". I don't see much of a difference between the two. Obama knows exactly how much ACORN gets, I have little doubt. He also knows how much they are in line to get in his stimulus package...he wrote it in. The old, "There are more important things..." is a standard ploy to dismiss what one doesn't want to discuss any further.

whose subsidiaries Dyncorp and KBR actually were involved in human trafficking and a child sex slave ring.

I see. So THAT bothers you but condoning and giving advice to people setting up prostitution houses for underage children smuggled into the country doesn't? How selective of you....

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

7 posted 2009-09-25 11:07 AM

Only one of the five television networks that interviewed President Obama for their Sunday shows bothered to ask him about Acorn, the left-wing community organizing group whose federal funding was cut off

hmmm...wonder what happened to the other four???

"Frankly, it's not something I've followed closely," Mr. Obama claimed, adding he wasn't even aware the group had been the recipient of significant federal funding. "This is not the biggest issue facing the country. It's not something I'm paying a lot of attention to," he said.

Mr. Obama took great pains to act as if he barely knew about Acorn. In fact, his association goes back almost 20 years. In 1991, he took time off from his law firm to run a voter-registration drive for Project Vote, an Acorn partner that was soon fully absorbed under the Acorn umbrella. The drive registered 135,000 voters and was considered a major factor in the upset victory of Democrat Carol Moseley Braun over incumbent Democratic Senator Alan Dixon in the 1992 Democratic Senate primary.

Mr. Obama's success made him a hot commodity on the community organizing circuit. He became a top trainer at Acorn's Chicago conferences. In 1995, he became Acorn's attorney, participating in a landmark case to force the state of Illinois to implement the federal Motor Voter Law. That law's loose voter registration requirements would later be exploited by Acorn employees in an effort to flood voter rolls with fake names.

. In 2007, in a speech to Acorn's leaders prior to their political arm's endorsement of his presidential campaign, Mr. Obama was effusive: "I've been fighting alongside of Acorn on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote in Illinois, Acorn was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work."

But the Obama campaign didn't appear eager to discuss the candidate's ties to Acorn. Its press operation vividly denied Mr. Obama had been an Acorn trainer until the New York Times uncovered records demonstrating that he had been. The Obama campaign also gave Citizens Consulting, Inc., an Acorn subsidiary, $832,000 for get-out-the-vote activities in key primary states. In filings with the Federal Election Commission, the Obama campaign listed the payments as "staging, sound, lighting," only correcting the filings after the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review revealed their true nature.

Given his longstanding ties with Acorn, President Obama's protestations of ignorance or disinterest in the group's latest scandal seem preposterous. Here's hoping White House reporters will press the president to clarify just how much he really knows about Acorn and when he knew it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574427041636360388.html

This is the fellow who doesn't really follow ACORN much and had no idea how much they were getting in government funds? I need more swampland to sell!!!

JenniferMaxwell

Member Elite

since 2006-09-14

Posts 2423

8 posted 2009-09-25 11:17 AM

Now you’ve gone and misquoted yourself, Balladeer. You didn’t say “something like” but rather “getting a response like”.

“Obama knows exactly how much ACORN gets, I have little doubt.” Pure speculation on your part with no supporting evidence whatsoever.

Saying “"There are more important things..." can be a ploy, or, as in this case, the truth, plain as the nose on your face.

And, before you go on about the stimulus package you might want to check http://www.factcheck.org/2009/02/the-stimulus-bill-and-acorn/

PS - instead of editing your posts to add to them or change the focus, I think it would be a courtesy to readers to put changes in a separate post so that they don't have to keep going back and checking your previous posts for edits.

JenniferMaxwell

Member Elite

since 2006-09-14

Posts 2423

9 posted 2009-09-25 11:27 AM

Oh please, I certainly do not condone what was on those videos. Please don’t try to discredit me by implying I do. That’s a despicable ploy that has no place in this forum. You owe me a retraction and public apology.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

10 posted 2009-09-25 11:41 AM

I don't see where I went back and edited my posts.If you do, please point them out.

Nor did I imply you condone child prostitution. What I implied was that you attacked Haliburton for child sex rings and had no reference to ACORN for their child prostitution advice. That doesn't mean you condone it - it simply means you are very selective in your attack methods as to what you go after and what you ignore..no apology necessary for stating the obvious.

JenniferMaxwell

Member Elite

since 2006-09-14

Posts 2423

11 posted 2009-09-25 12:31 PM

Your post # 6 with the despicable assertion implying that “ condoning and giving advice to people setting up prostitution houses for underage children smuggled into the country” doesn't bother me, has been edited.

Turn about is fair play so I guess it’s fair to assume since you haven’t spoken out, you’re not bothered by the fact that Halliburton subsidiaries have been involved in human trafficking, child sex slave rings and defrauding American taxpayers. How selective of you to ignore those heinous crimes.

Ron

Administrator

Member Rara Avis

since 1999-05-19

Posts 8669
Michigan, US

12 posted 2009-09-25 12:39 PM

quote:
That doesn't mean you condone it - it simply means you are very selective in your attack methods as to what you go after and what you ignore ...

But you do the same thing, Mike.

You complain about people giving advice to pimps for underage children smuggled into America, but remain silent about similar child exploitation in Russia, India, or South Africa. You don't even really condemn it in this country; you apparently just don't want others giving them tax advice? In a weird way, I guess that makes sense since there weren't actually any El Salvadoran girls being exploited; it was just fabricated. Lamentably, the stories about Dyncorp and KBR don't appear to be fictional.

Of course, in reality, we're ALL selective with our condemnations. Sadly, there's way to much in this world to condemn collectively every time we want to address a new item. We have to pick and choose and hope our condemnations accumulate rather than start from scratch every time we speak. Decrying Halliburton this week shouldn't mean we've forgiven Nixon or forgotten Jimmy Hoffa.

But you know all that, Mike. Are you sure you weren't perhaps just trying to shift focus?

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

13 posted 2009-09-25 08:30 PM

Dear Denise,

          Thank you for that thought, and for being kind enough to reply here.

     For myself, I hadn't been aware that the federal funding for ACORN had been 3.5 million dollars per year.  From the amount of rage and press time devoted to it by Beck and Hannity, I would have thought it had gotten at least an eighth or a tenth as much money as Halliburton, when it turns out that Halliburton, if what J.M. says is accurate, got as much in one day as ACORN has pretty much ever gotten.  J.M. has always seems very good with her facts.

     Surely, Fox will always fill this Robin Hood sort of function for you, though you understand it doesn't do the same for me.  Thanks for your considered reply, though, and any further thoughts you have.  Hope the kids continue well.

All my best, Bob Kaven

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

14 posted 2009-09-25 10:52 PM

Trying to shift focus, Ron? I was trying to do just the opposite. I was speaking of ACORN. The title of this thread is QUESTIONS ABOUT ACORN. Now, if Jennifer or anyone wants to discuss the sins of Haliburton, that's fine by me. They can open a Haliburton thread and we can discuss it there. The only reason it was gone into such detail here was to get the subject off ACORN. ACORN, in four different offices, gave advice on how to cheat on their taxes and how to hide illegal child prostitution rings...period. I consider that to be a pretty bad thing. The network news doesn't. Obama doesn't, either, claiming that there are many more important things to discuss and he didn't really pay a lot of attention to ACORN, even with his history with them as listed above. Jennifer wants to discuss the sins of Haliburton? Fine...do it in a Haliburton thread. To see the non-coverage the networks gave to ACORN, the stimulus waste, the cap and trade bill that got slipped through the House without mention and then complain that FOX didn't mention Haliburton enough is laughable.

Btw, Jennifer, either your computer or your eyes need to be checked. The edit you claim I made was non-existent. The comment is there in it's original form. We could always ask Ron to verify that (since he has very little to do) but that would almost have you apologize for your accusation, which we both know wouldn't happen. Hopefully you were just mistaken instead of deliberatly making a false accusation.

As far as ACORN is concerned, they have been bounced from the 2010 census, they have lost their HUD funding, new investigations are springing up all over the country...so SOMEONE, even the Congress, actually DO consider it something worth mentioning. That is vindication enough for FOX's attention to them and accusatory enough to the network news stations who closed their eyes to it.

Ringo

Member Elite

since 2003-02-20

Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes

15 posted 2009-09-25 11:42 PM

I was going to let this one go; however, me being who I am cannot do so in good concsience. SO, here are thing in my view:

Today's "issue" of mediamatters.org contains the following:

Acorn Videographers- 3 negative stories
Glenn Beck- 7 negative stories and a tag to even more negtive stories
Sean Hannity- 5 negative stories and a tag for more negative stories
Rush Limbaugh 3 negative stories, and a tag for more negaitve stories (it must have been a slow day)
Bill O'Reilly- 1 negative story with tagsg for more (did I read that right? ONLY ONE for Bill???)
Chris WAllace- 1 negative story
Fox News- only 1 negative story... with a LARGE tag for an entire section slamming anything they do.
Other Concervative Outlets- 11 negative stories with yet more tags.

They DO have links to liberal content... only in that it completely slams conservatives... and THESE are the people complaining about Fox News?

Let's take a quick look at some of the more reviled people on that particular network:
Glenn Beck- He does not host a news show... he has an OPINION show... and until this year, had it on CNN... with absolutely no one complaining about anything he said.
Bill O'Reilly- Once again, Mr. O has an OPINION show. Not only that, he has liberals on that he allows to give their opinion and is respectful to. (point of order, Madame Speaker- He has liberal professor and Fox News contributom Marc Lamont Hill, PhD on at this very moment). He had the CEO of ACORN on a couple of months ago, and was unerringly respectful to her, and never raised his voice to her. He gave President Obama a very tough, yet severely respectful interview during the campaign.
Sean Hannity- Another OPINION show. His nightly Great American Panel ALWAYS has a liberal or two (and on quite a few nights, all three members were liberal). Sean NEVER goes after them disrespectfully. He usually asks a question, and sits back to allow the guests to argue it out.
Rush Limbaugh- Yet another OPINION show (on the radio, this time). He doesn't usually allow guests on his show from either side of the isle.

I would tend to think that, in this case, What's not good for the Fox is perfectly fine for the Media.

One interesting thing about a Fox News personality that no one seems to have a hassle with.... Geraldo Rivera. I guess it is only OK to slamm the white guys and gals on Fox. Because he is Latino, Geraldo gets a pass.

Anyhow. Air America has had such liberal hosts as Jenine Garafolo (who demanded that the only reason people didn't like Obama is because they were racist) and Al Franken (who never met a concervative he was willing to allow the freedom to breathe. They are nowhere near being fair, or willing to give both sides of an issue.

I do not aften watch MSNBC, and do not, under any circumstances watch the nightly broadcast news, so I will ask you, Bob, to point to me ANY member of the MSNBC staff that allows concervatives onto their shows unless it is to make them look foolish, and where having their reporters call the people who attended the teaparties redneck racists is being fair?
I would also invite any other member of our little family who resides on the opposite side of the isle to admit that they ever watch Fox News, or any of the people I have mentioned in this post. I seem to hear many of the lineral party wailing and gnashing their teeth at the mean and vile Fox News, yet they cannot give example one of anything they know to be "true" that they have seen first hand.
I saw the video where Speaker Pelosi called the health reform protesters "astroturf" and "brown shirts"; I saw the video where Charles Rengel stated that he had not read HR 3200 (the health reform bill), and yet was demanding that it be passed; I saw the video of liberal college students shouting down a conservative speaker, and praising the Iranian leader who villifies America; I have seen the video of ACORN supporters beating a black man for selling t-shirts outside of a town hall meeting; I have seen with my own eyes ACORN members being led through a side door of a town hall meeting where the "regular" citizens were being pushed out the door, and being told they could not attend because there was no room at the inn.
The White House admitted that they were accepting e-mails from citizens who wished to send in the names of people who were speaking ill of the administration. The White House admitted that they were paying people to search the internet for stories that were not complimentary to the Administration.
If "media matters" then where is their coverage of these stories?

This post, Bob, got much longer than I wanted, or anticipated. If you wish more examples of why it is *I* feel that Media Matters doesn't really matter at all, please feel free to e-mail me, and wer can continue this discussion.

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

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

16 posted 2009-09-26 03:01 AM

Dear Ringo,

           Sorry for the confusion here, Ringo.  I thought I'd made it clear by the apology in the first posting that I did not consider Media Matters an unbiased source, and that was the reason I ordinarily did not use it as a matter of policy in my postings here.  I feel that media matters is clearly a left wing source.  I have a left wing bias that I try to keep out of my references, though not out of my opinions, since I believe that I want my opinions to be backed by facts that are pretty much beyond dispute as coming from unbiased sources.  If that isn't too convoluted.

     I wouldn't have brought the Media Matters in if it weren't in relationship to specific facts that you might find other places. If you feel that I have used to to say something untrue, I would urge you to be specific about it.  I don't believe I have.  Nor would I knowingly do so.  I have, in fact, repeatedly suggested the use of right wing sources with solid  reputations for accuracy, and I have on occasion, used them myself for those reasons.

     If you believe I've done otherwise, we can talk about that straightforwardly.  I'm certainly not trying to be deceptive here any more than I believe you are.

     I posted the Media Matters excerpt stating clearly that it was from a fund-raising e-mail and without any intention of trying to pull anything over on anybody.  Please read the posting again to see If i've mislead you in any way.  It's to avoid squabbles like this that I try to avoid biased sources.

     I posted this excerpt because they raised a perspective on the ACORN brouhaha that I had not seen raised before in these pages or, actually, anywhere, other than as speculation here by me a while back.  The facts and figures that the Media Matters posting quoted seem to be correct, and do seem to require some sort of address.  Your form of address is as good as any other.  I'm not sure that it actually addresses the facts and figures that M/M. actually raises, however, though it does go to show the amount of enmity it does arouse.

     And, Mike, while the title of the thread does say Questions about ACORN, you seem to have excluded the topic paragraph and elaboration that the initial posting traditionally supply.  It's your privilege to do so, of course.
But sooner or later the question should be addressed.  It was intended that it be addressed here in this thread, should folks feel able to tolerate coming to grips with the question, which is frankly a threatening one and which requires a certain amount of willingness to put some amount of partisanship aside.

     Putting all partisanship aside is impossible, since we're all touchy as porcupines on one level or another, I think, but some amount is probably possible.  To the degree that we can do this, I believe it's to everybody's  benefit.  The more common ground we have, the better in a Democracy, as long as the common ground is honestly come by.  In my opinion, at least.  It's difficult enough to gain in times such as these, at any rate.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven

JenniferMaxwell

Member Elite

since 2006-09-14

Posts 2423

17 posted 2009-09-26 04:30 AM

It seems highly unlikely, Balladeer, I would have missed your personally directed insult and false accusation in #6 had it been there when your post first went up. If I’m wrong, I most certainly would have the courtesy to apologize. Very sad that you haven’t extended me that same courtesy.

False accusations aren’t my style at all, I prefer to rely on facts to support my arguments. Unfortunately, since that was (at least) the second time you’ve falsely accused me of something, I have to assume that you do quite the opposite - use false accusations (and personally directed insults) when you have no facts to support your arguments. I guess I should have expected no less from someone like yourself who gives war profiteers a pass on human trafficking, child sexual exploitation and defrauding the United States government and the American taxpayer.

My post contrasting the amount of federal money given to Halliburton and ACORN was not the least bit off topic, providing you actually took the time to read all the material in Bob’s post #1, and had the ability to understand it, but this one is, and I do apologize to Bob for that.

JenniferMaxwell

Member Elite

since 2006-09-14

Posts 2423

18 posted 2009-09-26 05:31 AM

“I have seen the video of ACORN supporters beating a black man for selling t-shirts outside of a town hall meeting; I have seen with my own eyes ACORN members being led through a side door of a town hall meeting where the "regular" citizens were being pushed out the door”

Ringo, could you possibly give me links to those videos? I can’t find either one or any text material to support your claim that members of ACORN did those things. Thanks, would be most appreciative!

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

19 posted 2009-09-26 05:46 AM

So the amount of money received by an organization from the government is the key then?

I repeat...with all of the things mainstream media has chosen to ignore over the years having democratic ties, it is disingenuous of them to complain about FOX not giving enough coverage to the things they DO go after. Had Haliburton had Clinton ties with VP Gore previously on the board, I feel fairly confident it would have gotten the same lack of coverage by network news as anything democratic. As Ron stated, people are going to talk about what interests them the most and, as Ringo said, what FOX brings up is supported by facts with video to back them up. These points rankle mainstream media and the left because (1) things get coverage they don't want covered and (2) the public sees how these things don't get covered by network news and (3) they can't refute them. What's a left wing organization to do? Oh, yes, as this post indicates...scream foul, as MediaMatters has done here.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

20 posted 2009-09-26 09:11 AM

I have to assume that you do quite the opposite - use false accusations (and personally directed insults) when you have no facts to support your arguments

Jennifer, I have offered many facts to support my arguments. So has FOX, which makes them the target of the left wing smear campaigns. When one can't overcome the facts, one screams foul.

..and you do know what they say about assume, I'm sure.

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

21 posted 2009-09-26 09:17 AM

I wouldn't know half of the left or right wing commentators you're all talking about if I fell over them and can honestly say that I get none of my opinions from any of them. I suppose you could say that's why I don't know what I'm talking about most of the time, I'd argue that I prefer to form my own opinions based on the available information.

Which sources would I recommend?

All of them and none of them. It doesn't really matter where you get your information - the only thing that matters is whether the information you're getting stands up to close examination. That's the problem. People tend to hear what they want to hear, as Mike has pointed out a couple of times, what they should be doing is checking that what they're hearing is actually true, which is Bob's advice.

My own advice is to presume that everything you hear is an out and out lie and contrary to everything you know and believe then gather enough facts to prove that you're wrong. I guarantee that the answers you come up with won't be 100% conclusive but the opinion and understanding you obtain in the process will be of far more value than any media source.

It'll definitely be worth more to me. Almost daily I see posts with either just a link or a quote from some news source presented as if the fact that they exist attests to their validity. Personally I'd prefer to hear what the poster thinks rather than what Glenn Limbaugh or Rush Beck etc. thinks but I don't mind pointing out the flaws they present as fact. After all it gives me a starting point to go out and increase my understanding and form my own opinion, so I can't really complain.

The truth is out there - it's just unlikely to be all in one place - you need to work to find it.

That's my opinion.

.

[This message has been edited by Grinch (09-26-2009 10:27 AM).]

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

22 posted 2009-09-26 10:00 AM

Jennifer,

Here are the videos. I posted them in a previous thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTXBOgPCh9w&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtLzJOfH9DE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fgatewaypundit%2Eblogspot%2Ecom%2F&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--ZJhR3T4aw&feature=player_embedded
http://www.breitbart.tv/father-of-handicapped-son-received-threats-after-confrontation-with-rep-dingell/

/pip/Forum6/HTML/001850.html

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

23 posted 2009-09-26 10:47 AM

All of them and none of them. It doesn't really matter where you get your information - the only thing that matters is whether the information you're getting stands up to close examination.

True words indeed, sir. That's why FOX uses videos to substantiate their claims and that's why mainstream media prefers to ignore situations they don't want to get airtime. If FOX were to come out with unsubstantiated charges, the media would be all over them. FOX presents facts. Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and O'Reilly are all opinion shows, as Ringo pointed out. They will take the video, or whatever evidence backs up FOX's claims, and run with it. One can agree, disagree or simply laugh at them. Same with liberal opinion shows.

FOX is despised by the mainstream media and feared by the left-wingers because they will expose things the others don't want exposed - and they do it in a way that the left can't refute. Many liberal politicians run from FOX because they know they will be asked questions that mainstream media won't ask. 4 out of 5 stations Obama was on didn't even bring up ACORN to him, even after congress cut off it's funding and the census dropped it. Ask yourself why. Mainstream media didn't even mention the cap and trade bill on the day it was being voted on in the house, a bill with monumental consequences to the average American. Ask yourself why. No one asked Obama how Van Jones got through his vetting process. Why not?

It's not chance that FOX is the most-watched news channel. It's because people know they have to go there to get news mainstream media tries to white-wash...and they are successful because they back it up with facts. Does that make organizations like MediaMatters go after them with a smear campaign? You betcha...

JenniferMaxwell

Member Elite

since 2006-09-14

Posts 2423

24 posted 2009-09-26 11:17 AM

Thanks so much for the links, Denise, but I don't see any ACORN workers in any of those videos.

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

25 posted 2009-09-26 12:30 PM

quote:
It's not chance that FOX is the most-watched news channel. It's because people know they have to go there to get news mainstream media tries to white-wash...and they are successful because they back it up with facts. Does that make organizations like MediaMatters go after them with a smear campaign? You betcha...

Perhaps.

But maybe all the people are watching Fox for a laugh, as you pointed out people may be watching for all sorts of reasons. Fox's ratings don't tell us much beyond how many people are watching and how many people watching tells us nothing about why they're watching or indeed what the rest of the nation are doing who aren't watching. If it were that simple we could conclude that all the people watching thought the issues raised were important and all those that don't.. don't.

Like I said I don't know that much about them not having watched much, I'll check Fox out and let you know my opinion.

.

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

26 posted 2009-09-26 03:32 PM

Mike,

I visited Foxnews.com and checked out three news items at random. I have to say that all three seemed to be fairly unbiased news reports to me. They contained some definitely questionable assertions but all of them were direct quotes and clearly reported as such.

On that evidence I didn't see much wrong with Fox News, it was the same for the world and business sections.

Then I clicked on the Opinion section.

It went rapidly downhill from there. I expect bias in an opinion section, it's bound to happen, people reach conclusions based on the facts that are coloured by their own perspective. What I didn't expect is an opinion at total odds with the facts, which were either distorted invented or completely disregarded.

I watched a video piece by Glenn Beck regarding Afghanistan and found so many inaccuracies and false presumptions that it didn't take too long to realise that he didn't have a clue about what he was waffling on about. I don't mind if someone builds an opinion at odds with mine based on the facts, even if the facts are misunderstood, there's at least some common ground - I didn't find any of that with Beck.

I didn't leave it there though. Opinions are only opinions and maybe opinions based on false facts are the norm in the media. I wanted a comparison so off I went to the New York Times and read an opinion piece on the same subject by Bob Herbert. It turned out to be well thought out and well presented - I disagreed with the conclusions but I could see why and how it was formed based on the evidence and facts presented. I then went to the Times of London and read an equally well laid out opinion piece by Michael Evans, granted it was from a British perspective but the mechanics were the same - here are the facts and here's my conclusion.

With Beck it was - Here's a false premise based on half-truths and false assumptions.

I may have inadvertently picked a particularly bad example in Beck or perhaps two particularly good examples at the New York Times and the Times of London. There may be examples of left wing commentators offering opinions that are as equally as bad as Beck's. If you have any suggestions let me know and I'll check them out, in the meantime I'll have a dig around myself.

In summary:

Fox News - no problem with the articles I read.

Fox opinion - a bit of a chocolate fire truck

.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

27 posted 2009-09-26 03:51 PM

     The details mentioned in the Media Matters fund raiser are not smears nor are they lies unless somebody can show that they are lies.  The difference in the coverage on Fox between the the two situations — ACORN and Halliburton and the Republican scandals — is appalling in exactly the proportion that Media Matters says it is appalling unless somebody can show that the proportion is fair and balanced.

     To attack Media Matters as a Left Wing organization may be accurate in that it is a left wing organization.  It does nothing to discredit the facts that the Left Wing organization Presents, in the same way that when a Right Wing organization presents facts, such as The Economist, one that has a history of reporting that is as accurate as Media Matters but with an opposite political bias, we must consider the facts from The Economist as valid and look to see what our facts tell us as well.

     It doesn't do to dispose of the facts because you don't like the politics of the source so long as the source has a dependable reputation.  Media Matters does, though you might not like the facts it presents.

     And I make it a general policy not to bring in facts from Left wing sources, as a rule.  I tend to bring in sources from the center or the right as a courtesy to those who disagree with me most of the time.  I also make a point of letting people know when I run across sources that I think back up their points of view, even when they disagree with my own.  I believe I tend to be more than fair in these matters.  Perhaps you folks see this differently.

     I still do not see that the facts that Media Matters set out have actually been dealt with here.

     I respect anybody's right to disagree of course, but that's how I see it.

     I'd really like to see us come to grips with this here if we can.  Perhaps we can't, I don't know.  But I like to think we can.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

28 posted 2009-09-26 04:20 PM

SEIU is a sister organitzation of Acorn, Jennifer.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

29 posted 2009-09-26 04:49 PM

grinch, thanks for checking it out. FOX news is actually fair and balanced, as they claim. Talk shows are talk shows. Believe it or not, I am not a big Glenn Beck fan. I think he goes overboard and tries too hard to make the unimportant important. He does have some good things he points out but they get diminished by the way he tries to blow EVERYTHING out of proportion. Hannity, who I have always admired, has leaned in that direction also. Yes, I know about Reverend Wright. I don't need to be reminded of him every day. Limbaugh is better, still very opinionated of course, but his material is up to date and he is actually a very intelligent man. O'Reilly seems to be the best choice for presenting news and views in a realistic, non-pompom waving, manner. He has guests on from both sides of the aisle, including Obama, and treats all with respect and is appreciated by them for doing so. Actually in the last poll, he has more viewers than ABC,CBS,NBC,CNN and MSNBC....combined. He must be doing something right.

People watch for a laugh? I'm sure many do, with regards to the talk shows, but not enough to continue taking the top ratings year after year. That takes substance and a belief by the viewers of the accuracy of what they are seeing.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

30 posted 2009-09-26 06:07 PM

Ok, Bob, I will try to answer your original question with regards to the topic.

In a new study released yesterday, Study by whom...MediaMatters? How did they conduct that study? What were it's guidelines?

On Beck's and Hannity's respective television programs combined, ACORN was mentioned 1,502 times between May 8, 2006, and September 18, 2009. More than 1,500 times.

Says who? MediaMatters? We are supposed to take the numbers of a left-wing organization with an axe to grind as scripture? They can throw out any figures they want and you can't know if they are valid or not. They are fund-raising, Bob.

Beck and Hannity have spent years obsessively attacking ACORN under the guise of exposing corruption at an organization that receives government funding.

Obsessively, Bob? They just decided one day that they had an obsession to attack someone so they chose ACORN? Bob, no one really wants to talk about ACORN that much because of the president's past and current ties to it. Remember, this is the organization that used force, coercion, and threats to force banks to give loans to unqualified home purchasers, thugs who had a major role in contributing to the housing crisis. If MediaMatters says they have spent years attacking them, well then, that means it has nothing to do with Obama, right, since they began these "attacks" long before Obama made the scene.

Comparing Haliburton's receipts in government money to ACORN's is an extremely ridiculous gesture.

Founded in 1919, Halliburton is one of the world's largest providers of products and services to the energy industry. With more than 50,000 employees in approximately 70 countries, the company serves the upstream oil and gas industry throughout the life cycle of the reservoir - from locating hydrocarbons and managing geological data, to drilling and formation evaluation, well construction and completion, and optimizing production through the life of the field.

Obviously, Haliburton's operating expenses with regard to labor, equipment, etc is extensive. Pointing an accusatory finger at their GROSS receipts and comparing them to ACORN is silly. Haliburton just got a 140 million dollar contract in August for work in Angola. No one seems to have a problem with that in the administration.

True enough, what does that have to do with corruption and scandal within the organization? Nothing. Then why bring it up? Why the ridiculous comparison? Because they are fund-raising. They are trying to incite, get sympathy for. Big numbers do that and get people to parrot them, without thinking, as we have seen right here in this thread.

Now, if MediaMatters were to compile a list of all scandals over the past so many years and do a side-by-side comparison of coverage by both parties, that would be an interesting thing. Bring in Barney Frank with Fanni Mae, Chris Dodd, Rangel+Geithner+Daschle tax evasions, Jefferson with his cold cash (in the freezer)....bring them all on and let's see who covered what the most. No, they won't do that. They prefer to pick and choose a couple with the most notoriety for shock value and ignore everything else. If media really mattered to them, they would be more un-biased in their approach.

In summary, what is the purpose of their letter? To complain about Beck and Hannity picking on ACORN? To complain about Beck and Hannity not picking on Haliburton and Blackwater? To try to point out that Beck and Hannity are biased, as if there are no talk show hosts on either side who aren't? I can't understand the gist of it at all. They are letting two talk show hosts get under their skin so much they have to whine in public about it and send out letters to the faithful. Why?

It's all a fund-raising tactic, Bob, and little else.

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

31 posted 2009-09-26 06:59 PM

I think I need to apologise Bob.

I was concentrating so much on Fox I forgot to address your original post.

ACORN

A left wing community organisation that seem to attract and employ some dubious employees. Have the right wing commentators targeted them? Singled them out for particular scrutiny? Yes, of course they have, the fact that Obama worked with them in the past made that a forgone conclusion; it'd be stupid for the right to ignore the chance to highlight any malpractice. The fact that I keep coming back to when I think about this is that if there was nothing to find it wouldn't matter how much scrutiny ACORN was put under.

When it comes to what was found, from what I've seen sacking the employees would suffice, I don't think you can argue a case for a company or organisation to be penalised out of existence because of the stupidity of a few employees. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that the employees were acting on anything but there own, if it was any other organisation the dismissal of the offenders would be as far as it went.

I've mentioned in another thread the reasons the Defund Acorn Bill was proposed and the reasons I believe it's a prime example of bad legislation so I won't labour the point here.

Haliburton?

I don't think you can trade indiscretions by pointing the finger somewhere else; each case has to be judged in isolation but the same rules should apply. If the corruption was standard organisational practice the organisation should be penalised if it was a few wayward employees, however high, they should be punished. That should be the same for ACORN, Haliburton or any other organisation found to be acting in an illegal or unscrupulous manner.

Have the right wing commentators avoided the Haliburton case? Hell yes, but so have the left with regard to ACORN - if you have a wart you don't go painting it luminous green.

That's my take on it.

For what it's worth.

.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

32 posted 2009-09-26 07:38 PM

I don't think you can argue a case for a company or organisation to be penalised out of existence because of the stupidity of a few employees.

Four videos, four different cities, four different sets of employees.....same result. Now, if you want to be generous and claim that all four offices acting the same is coincidence and not company training or policy, go ahead but I would consider that strange for someone who relies on logic to form conclusions.

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

33 posted 2009-09-26 08:01 PM

Not that strange Mike, I try to get my ducks in a row before I reach a conclusion.

Logic dictates that a standard policy would be universally followed, that you'd need to see consistency to prove it was a standard policy.

How many offices did the filmmakers get turned down at Mike?

O'keefe is on record as saying it was "23 or less" ACORN says a couple of dozen - I think it's fairly safe and logical to say that it wasn't a standard policy.

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

34 posted 2009-09-26 08:06 PM

As a side issue Mike do you remember me saying that the Defund ACORN bill would impact on companies and organisations beyond ACORN if it were passed?

Well I've found you a list of potential targets.
http://www.contractormisconduct.org/

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

35 posted 2009-09-26 09:23 PM

Why do you suppose Congress cut off ACORN HUD funding? It certainly wasn't partisan politics with the overwhelming majority of Democrats voting in favor of the defunding...so what's your guess?

JenniferMaxwell

Member Elite

since 2006-09-14

Posts 2423

36 posted 2009-09-27 03:38 AM

I’m on a coffee break so I’ll take a shot at answering your question, Balladeer.

Perhaps because reporting on the ACORN sting wasn’t fair and balanced especially on Fox. In their eagerness to condemn an organization that’s done far more good than harm, and continue to appease and inflame their right wing viewers, 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.

You’re suggesting the actions of workers in four offices indicates a policy, and the actions of workers in 23 or 24 offices doesn’t? How fair and balanced is that?

Back to my reading. Have a nice day!

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

37 posted 2009-09-27 08:18 AM

quote:
so what's your guess?

My rough guess?

The Republicans are tagging defund ACORN amendments on almost every bill currently under review because they believe that they're on to a winner, having been handed a stick with which to beat the Democrats.

The Democrats, who don't want to be seen to be supporting the actions of the ACORN staff, are playing along.

The whole bunch of them are playing a little game called "placate the people" they're falling over themselves wasting time and, more importantly, money to look like they're actually doing something. What they don't want to tell you is that all the bills and amendments regarding defunding ACORN are about as likely to stand as I am of becoming the next President of the United States.

The sensible and honest politicians that are voting against all these bills and amendments are trying to point out that the bills are a waste of time because they're all unconstitutional but nobody is listening in the melee to score political points.

The insane thing is that ACORN will receive more in damages if this reaches the courts than they ever received in government funding - they'll be laughing all the way to the bank. If you don't believe me simply whisper the words "Bill of attainder" to your local politician and, if he knows anything about the American Constitution, watch the colour drain from his face.

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

38 posted 2009-09-27 08:28 AM

Article 1 section 9 of the United States Constitution:

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

39 posted 2009-09-27 09:54 AM

I see...so Democrats are trying to placate the conservative public by throwing them this bone. I haven't seen them go out of their way before to do that but it's a possibility.

The sensible and honest politicians that are voting against all these bills You mean all seven of them? Or was it nine? When we only have less than ten sensible and honest politicians in congress we REALLY have problems.

President Grinch? Thank God it's morning here. Had I read that before going to bed, the nightmares would have been extreme!

Thanks for the reply.

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

40 posted 2009-09-27 11:02 AM

quote:
so Democrats are trying to placate the conservative public by throwing them this bone

No Mike, I said Democrats are trying to placate the public Conservative citizens don't have a monopoly in condemning alleged support for child prostitution. The Democrats would be stupid to ignore the general condemnation.

quote:
When we only have less than ten sensible and honest politicians in congress we REALLY have problems.

I don't know how to break this to you Mike.. You really do have problems.

There are a few main types of politicians getting involved in this fiasco. Those include the ones that want to crucify ACORN (largely Republican). Those that don't want to be seen to be defending the actions of the ACORN employees (largely Democrat) and those who realise that the amendments and bills are just political smoke and mirrors, and costly ones at that. They'd be the honest and sensible minority Mike, the politicians that have the guts and moral fortitude to stand up and tell it how it is - the only politicians who are actually saying anything worth listening to.

Rome's burning Mike, the fiscal enemy is at the gate, and the majority of your politicians are playing the fiddle and voting on legislation that they know damn well is unconstitutional.

On that evidence I'd say yes, you definitely do have problems.

BTW. My wife has just reminded me that I once owned an Hawaiian shirt - so I may be eligible to stand for President after all. But whatever you do please don't tell Denise - I'll never hear the end of it.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

41 posted 2009-09-27 11:10 AM

Very interesting, Grinch..

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.

God knows I'm no lawyer and certainly no politician but the term "punishment" seems to be an issue here, with regards to a court case involving ACORN. No life, liberty, or property has been taken by rescinding funding. There is cerrtainly nothing in the Constitution which declares that ACORN be entitled to government funds. Contracts? Yes, a point could be made for that. SHould Congress decide to cut off funding during the middle of a contract between government and ACORN, that would definitely be considered punishment and congress would be liable for cuntinuing funding until the expiration of the contract. . Is there such a contract? I have no idea. If there is not, then Congress has the right to not renew contracts or continue payments with anyone they see fit, for whatever reason they see fit. I may not like the fact that my father decides to stop my allowance because I am not doing well in school but I doubt I can take him to court on it. Can ACORN take congress to court for not continuing to give them what they have been receiving only at the behest of the government? Beats me and I'm not even intellectually capable of debating it.

It would be an interesting case....

Rome is burning is a term that has been used several times during our existence...and yet here we are.

As far as the Hawaiian shirt, you would have to prove you bought it in Hawaii to be qualified.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

42 posted 2009-09-27 11:45 AM

A group of dissident members is seeking a federal investigation of ACORN for alleged criminal violations stemming from an embezzlement scandal that rocked the organization last year.

The splinter group, ACORN 8, released a 24-page document Wednesday that asks federal investigators to consider fraud, embezzlement and conspiracy charges, and criminal civil rights violations relating to the embezzlement of nearly $1 million from the nonprofit's accounts and an alleged cover-up of the theft for almost a decade.

"Moreover, due to the admission that a felony has been committed, other federal offenses may have also been committed ... ," states the document signed by 14 members of ACORN 8, including recently expelled members of ACORN's national board of directors.

The embezzlement and accusations of voter registration fraud in at least eight states, including Pennsylvania, have cost ACORN -- the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now -- the support of a benefactor that gave the activist group $7 million in the past decade.

The ACORN 8 complaint alleges violation of the civil rights of board members who sought to investigate the embezzlement and subsequently were removed from the board.

The action stems from a bitter dispute within ACORN since disclosure in June that Dale Rathke, brother of ACORN co-founder and former Chief Organizer Wade Rathke, embezzled $948,000.

ACORN officials last year announced a settlement agreement to recoup the money. No criminal charges resulted.

ACORN 8 members, however, claim the embezzlement was symptomatic of deeper problems. Top staff and members of the board's executive committee have stymied internal efforts to reform ACORN and open its operations, they maintain.
"We're not trying to destroy ACORN. We love ACORN, but it needs to be reformed," McCray said. "Members have to take control of ACORN and try to get it back on the right track." http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_606173.html

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

43 posted 2009-09-27 11:51 AM

The embezzlement resulted in ACORN's loss of one long-standing prominent benefactor -- the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, which gave ACORN more than $7 million in the past decade. The charity canceled plans to donate $1.2 million to ACORN affiliates this fiscal year. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in November severed ties with ACORN.

ACORN and its affiliates received more than $31 million in federal grants between 1998 and this year, according to an analysis by the staff of House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio. Boehner called for an end to federal grants to ACORN and its affiliates, pending investigations into voter registration fraud allegations. http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_606173.html

So, if the money received from the government is in a grant form, does the bill of attainder still come into play? Also, can ACORN then sue the Catholic Campaignfor Human Development for rescinding their donation plans?

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

44 posted 2009-09-27 12:25 PM

quote:
God knows I'm no lawyer and certainly no politician but the term "punishment" seems to be an issue here

I think you'd have to stretch the English language to define it in any other way than as a punishment Mike, in the same way that you losing your allowance was a punishment for not doing well at school. The two are directly related.

The government is refusing ACORN'S right to apply and receive funding because they believe that ACORN is involved in voter fraud and aiding and abetting in child prostitution. That discriminates against a group without a valid cause proven by due process. That's unconstitutional, and for very good reason. If the government is allowed to apply such sanctions against ACORN they are handed the right to do the same to any and every group and organisation using the same rules.

If the proposed legislation said "any group convicted of committing voter fraud or aiding and abetting child prostitution cannot receive government funds" there wouldn't be a problem.

It's the assumption of guilt without due process that's at the heart of the attainder law and the issue which will ultimately determine whether the bills and amendments are unconstitutional.

.

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

45 posted 2009-09-27 12:25 PM

You wouldn't need any proof for the Democratic Nominating Committee, Grinch. If they like you, that is. Just smile and spin any yarn you like!

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

46 posted 2009-09-27 12:35 PM

quote:
So, if the money received from the government is in a grant form, does the bill of attainder still come into play? Also, can ACORN then sue the Catholic Campaign for Human Development for rescinding their donation plans?

A bill of attainder isn't a bill in it's own right Mike, it's the description of any bill that penalises or discriminates against a group without due process.

If a bill is enacted that says that ACORN cannot receive grants because they're a bunch of thieves that bill could be said to be a bill of attainder. Likewise if a bill existed that prohibited the Catholic Campaign for Human Development from donating to ACORN for the same reason then that could be said to be a bill of attainder.

The easiest way of spotting such a bill is to ask whether the person or group named (being named specifically is a big clue) is being prejudged and could incur a loss due to that unproven prejudgement.

.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

47 posted 2009-09-27 06:18 PM

I think you'd have to stretch the English language to define it in any other way than as a punishment Mike, in the same way that you losing your allowance was a punishment for not doing well at school. The two are directly related.

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

Of course it's a punishment but is it a punishment as defined in a court of law? I don't think so. Of course, to avoid any chance of that happening, Congress could simply say "We are cutting off funding for ACORN"...period. Funding is not a right for ACORN and giving funding to any one particular group is not an obligation of the government.

ACORN has been given freebees by the government. The government can cut those freebees off at their disgression...end of story.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

48 posted 2009-09-27 06:22 PM

There is no bill preventing the Catholic organization from not donating. They are doing it by their own initiative. What influenced them to make that decision doesn't really figure in to the equation.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

49 posted 2009-09-27 06:26 PM

More and more interesting as we go.

I appreciate your efforts there, Mike. Let me think about them a bit and get back to you about my response.

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

50 posted 2009-09-27 08:02 PM

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 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

51 posted 2009-09-27 08:26 PM

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 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

52 posted 2009-09-27 10:17 PM

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 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

53 posted 2009-09-27 11:24 PM

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 1999-06-08

Posts 1794

54 posted 2009-09-27 11:58 PM

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 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

55 posted 2009-09-28 12:04 PM

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 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

56 posted 2009-09-28 12:07 PM

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 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

57 posted 2009-09-28 04:29 PM

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 1999-06-08

Posts 1794

58 posted 2009-09-28 10:11 PM

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

Member Elite

since 2006-09-14

Posts 2423

59 posted 2009-09-29 04:44 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjTiIpmufK8

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

60 posted 2009-09-29 02:53 PM

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 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

61 posted 2009-09-29 03:26 PM

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

Member Elite

since 2006-09-14

Posts 2423

62 posted 2009-09-29 03:28 PM

More on the demonization of ACORN: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#33013202

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

63 posted 2009-09-29 05:55 PM

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

Member Elite

since 2006-09-14

Posts 2423

64 posted 2009-09-29 06:03 PM

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 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

65 posted 2009-09-29 06:04 PM

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 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

66 posted 2009-09-29 06:11 PM

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

Member Elite

since 2006-09-14

Posts 2423

67 posted 2009-09-29 06:16 PM

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

Member Elite

since 2006-09-14

Posts 2423

68 posted 2009-09-29 06:22 PM

Anyway, your lucky night. I've got work to do. Later.

Ringo

Member Elite

since 2003-02-20

Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes

69 posted 2009-09-29 06:24 PM

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 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

70 posted 2009-09-29 06:29 PM

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 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

71 posted 2009-09-29 08:32 PM

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

Member Elite

since 2006-09-14

Posts 2423

72 posted 2009-09-29 09:50 PM

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 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

73 posted 2009-09-29 09:59 PM

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

Member Elite

since 2006-09-14

Posts 2423

74 posted 2009-09-29 11:54 PM

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.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

75 posted 2009-09-30 01:38 AM

Dear Ringo,

           I understand your willingness to stand up for Fox News.  I was wondering what you might think of these articles.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fox_News

http://trueslant.com/christopherthomas/2009/09/20/lies-liars-and-accountability-fox-news-is-having-a-bad-week/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies

     I have noticed that several sources, including the Wikipedia source above have mentioned the tendency for Fox viewers to be misinformed about the facts of the Iraq War.  This appears to be the result of Fox News coverage as well as editorial and opinion coverage.  Fox viewers seem to have gotten the notion that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that the United States had worldwide support for invading that country, and that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11.  While these points of view were reported on Fox, and while the Fox reportage seemed to reflect the Republican party line, none of these assertions were true.

     At the extreme other end of the spectrrum, only about 10% of NPR  and PBS consumers shared these misconceptions.

     Other such information is laid out in the articles above.

     I don’t expect you to change your mind, but I do think that the information is solid.  I see nothing wrong with watching Fox on a regular basis for balance.  But it needs to be heavily supplemented to get some picture as to how much of a single minded point of view it does present.  Don’t subtract Fox, add a little NPR for protein.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

76 posted 2009-09-30 02:10 AM

Dear Mike,

           I do believe you're trying to call me racist.  How quaint.

I'd be interested in hearing you describe the demographics of the two parties without reference to appropriate identifiers, but I confess I await your attempt with bated breath.  To name a difference isn't to freight that difference with excess baggage.  To call you crusty doesn't mean that I don't feel affection for the occasional crusty guy.

     As a former drug and alcohol counselor,I'd like to point out  there can be a difference between  somebody who takes a drug medicinally and somebody who takes it recreationally.  Cocaine has a small but important place in our pharmacopeia.  It is mostly used as a topical anesthetic.  It doesn't work particularly well as an analgesic — not at all, as far as I know, and in its standard form it's function as a stimulant makes it a frequent subject for abuse.  IUn its original form, leaves of the coca plant chewed with (if I remember correctly, some sort of lime) it releases a much more manageable level of stimulant into the system and is more difficult to abuse.

     I should be very surprised indeed if one of your physicians had prescribed cocaine for you.  I doubt that you would qualify as a coke-head at all.  While in pain, it is very difficult to get addicted, as I understand it.  If the drug is continued and not tapered off as the pain becomes more bearable, then addiction may be possible.  This happened a fair amount after the civil war, when we were still unclear how to use opiates and hypodermics and a tidal wave of morphine addiction hit the country.

     The first really big weapon in fighting morphine addiction, by the way, was a new wonder drug from Bayer, and it was close to 100% effective in combating the ravages of Morphine addiction.  It is still as effective today, though folks have discovered that there may be reasons to be more careful than was originally thought when prescribing heroin.

     Oxycontin for Rush, I haven't heard about coke myself.  That may have gotten by me, or it may be a mistake.  I had heard about alcohol for Beck.  As far as I know, though, both guys are in remission with their addictions.  If they can stay sober the way they're acting, more power to them.  I'd have trouble actually believing it, but it may well be true.  With this sort of thing, I'd rather give them the benefit of the doubt.  Take your meds as prescribed, you'll heal faster.  Talk to your doctor about cutting them back as the pain decreases; he or she is the one who actually is following the case.

     If you feel funny about my description of the demographics, take a try yourself.  Mine is accurate.

BK

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

77 posted 2009-09-30 06:25 AM

To my knowledge, Jennifer, the only violence at any of the town halls was perpetrated by Obama's buddies from SEIU after he put the call out to them to tell opponents of his big government power grab to shut up and get out of the way.

Ringo

Member Elite

since 2003-02-20

Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes

78 posted 2009-09-30 08:08 AM

Bob- I acknowledge that there are sloppy reports in every media outlet. It is, however, my viewpoint that Fox News (not the broadcast, but the cable channel) is the most fair in its reporting. It is not only my viewpopint, but that of millions of others as well.
As for the sources. Wikipedia is not an accepted reference in reporting (it isn't supposed to be anyhow), and is not accepted by the very vast majority of the teachers that I have talked with (and I talked with a great many before becoming an education major with my return to school). As such, I cannot accept it as a reliable point for this discussion.
The sourcewatch site is, I must admit, is a new one for me. I looked at the site extensively, and not just at the link you posted (which I did read, btw) and it seems to be nothing more than a political Wiki. As there is no moderator as such, and it is a "collaborative" site where anyone can post anything, I cannot accept it, either (again, using my professor's and my kids' teachers criteria).
Both sites seem to be properly researched, and annotated. That is to be respected. In order to accept the artiocles as viable, though, I would have to do the research on every source cited (well, at least a few) and I just plain do not have that time this morning (I am getting the kids, my girlfriend and I all out the door in about 15 minutes). I will check out the sources later this evening, and weigh back in.
With the trueslant site... it actually appears to be as unbioased as any, with both conservatives and liberals being represented.
The article did make some good points... one small issue, though:
ALL broadcasting companies direct segments of what they shoot to include on their various reports, from the nationals all the way down to the local outlets. It is done to make the shot better and more usable. Not every report, not every time; however, to point out that Fox News is doing it and to deny that (getting back to your original question) ACORN or the liberally-biased media outlets don't get as many purple shirts in the shot as possible is joining the fray of pointing fingers to take everyone's eyes off of your side of the argument(which we all do, unfortunately).

Jennifer- Jennifer, Jennifer, Jennifer...
There is absolutely nothing I, or anyone else who does not accept your scope of the world as being absolute can do to to get you to pay attention and to stop arguing, as opposed to discussing the facts. Absolutely nothing.

I actually attempted to assit you in making your points by showing you how the words and videos you were using are working against you, and you resorted to personal attacks. If you had truly read the post I made about the ACORN actions at the town hall meetings, then you would have remembered that &I& saw the ACORN people being lead through the back door... it wasn't Memorex, it was LIVE.
As for the video of the T-Shirt vendor being attacked, Denise posted the links after you asked for it, and yet, you are still attacking me for not posting them, and calling my credibility into question. The rest of the thread had moved on, and you insisted on going backwards and bringing up old news in the weak attempt of murking up the waters and getting us off topic.
A great many of the people on your side of the isle (by no means all) have the same tendency to do that. Even your lovely and talented Ms. Maddow. The discussion has moved along into new territory, and you go back to post 16... the rest of us are way up here in the 70's... how about you hop on the wagon and come on in forthe big win. You have already lost.

And that's the way it was, Wednesday, September 30, 2009..... Good Day.
(with apologies to the appropriate deceased newscaster.)

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

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

79 posted 2009-09-30 08:46 AM

Interesting article regarding Acorn, SEIU and Obama:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjljYzYyMDhlY2Y4MTRhZTI4NGQ5OGVlMGE5YmIzYTI=

As to Ms. Maddow, in my opinion she is a good example of a high-priced education and intelligence being wasted.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

80 posted 2009-09-30 12:18 PM

Dear Ringo,

          Thank you for the solid response.  Your criticism of Wikipedia or any other open source reference is well taken, as might be inferred from attacks upon Wikipedia articles by hackers within Fox News itself.  See the references within the Wikipedia article.  They are worth checking out.  The antidote, as you suggested in your response, is actually to look at the references cited and do your own evaluation of them.  Your willingness to do so determines to a great extent your critical thinking skills.

     There is no reason for you to accept Wikipedia as a trustworthy source without an examination of its sources and the integrity with which it uses them and the honesty of the logic it applies in drawing conclusions from them.  I would not have it otherwise.  I would rather you do examine these things and make your evaluation of exactly where and how far you can trust this source and every source.  There will be places where you will find that they can be taken to the bank and places where their information will seem bogus, and if you could predict where, you'd qualify as a bona fide psychic.  Certainly check out the references.

     Then apply the same standards to your other news sources.  NBC, CNN, The New York Times and, oh yes, Fox as well.  Keep reading and watching Fox, simply evaluate them with the same eye that you'd turn on any other source.  I'm not speaking of the editorial Fox, which as you've said, you understand to carry a bias.  I'm speaking of the Fox that you feel is fair and balanced, the news reporting Fox.  Evaluate them with the same curiosity that you'd investigate the other news reporting organizations.

     Perhaps that feels like too much of a burden for a busy man.  Perhaps it is.

     But I ask you to consider the misinformation I spoke about that Fox viewers seemed to share about the Iraq War and about 9/11.  Correlation  and causation are not the same, as a man now returning to school will now know.  But there does seem a high correlation between viewers of Fox and holders of these pieces of misinformation.  And a low correlation between viewers of  Public Broadcasting (and listeners to National Public Radio) to these same pieces of misinformation.

     While you dealt with a number other things I said in my posting, you didn't deal with that.

     I applaude your critical thinking, even when turned in this direction.  If I can't be critical of myself, especially against decent questions, I'd be a pretty poor Liberal.  I'd also be a pretty poor Liberal if I told you to stop reading or thinking about any source, no matter how much I disagreed with it.  My interest would be and is in both of us getting information and broader points of view from which to consider the world.

     Sincerely, Bob Kaven

JenniferMaxwell

Member Elite

since 2006-09-14

Posts 2423

81 posted 2009-09-30 12:43 PM

Ah, I see, Ringo, the videos you saw with your very own eyes that DIDN’T show ACORN workers doing ANYTHING (as I pointed out to Denise) are YOUR proof that ACORN members DID do the things you accused them of. How silly of me not to see what really wasn’t ever there. Sort of like when Balladeer pointed out to Bob, “that top officers of ACORN are, guess what?, white.”, I looked at pics of Bertha Lewis and Maude Hurd and dang it all, missed the proof that isn’t there again!

“As to Ms. Maddow, in my opinion she is a good example of a high-priced education and intelligence being wasted.”
I suppose one could come to that conclusion when an under-educated, airhead like Wink Wink Palin gets the VP nomination and all Rachel gets is a talk show.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

82 posted 2009-09-30 01:15 PM

Dear Denise,

          I read the article in The National Review.  It seemed to say that a group of people on the left had interests in social justice and community organization.  When one of them became President of the United States, he thought one of the others would supply interesting advice.  Do I have this approximately right?

     George Washington was a Freemason.  When he became President, he depended on a number of other Freemasons for advice, including Ben Franklin.  There are masonic symbols all over the U.S. Capitol and imprinted in its currency.  Is this significant?

     Or is it possible that each drew strength from people whose ideas were similar?

     We could do the same sort of connect the dots game with the right wing as well and with the people who went to Yale.  Or with right-wing people who serve of the boards of directors of the top 100 corporations in the country, and the number of those who've gotten appointed to various political posts.  It is a brain-painful pursuit.

     Your ability to judge whether Rachel Maddow's education has been wasted would be limited by your understanding of the purpose of the Rhodes Scholarship and your understanding of why she was selected for it.

     As for her brain, do you feel that the intellectual underpinning she offers is not well documented?  Do you believe that her facts are not sourced?  Are the connections not firmly established in the chains of her reasoning?

     Where, other than the fact that she obviously disagrees with you on almost every political issue one might name, might you point to any defect?  And why does this mean that her intellect is wasted if it leads to conclusions other than your own, for goodness sake?  She is allowed to be bright, educated, competent and more liberal minded than you in my book without deserving this sort of ad hominem attack.

Yours, Bob Kaven

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

83 posted 2009-09-30 01:52 PM

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.

Sure there are but that isn't the point. Rhodes scholar Rachel sees fit to go on the air blasting conservatives for derrogatory gestures against Obama or, more importantly as she puts it, any president of the Unted States. She called that type of action dangerous, violence-inciting and un-American. Comparing a president to Hitler, or calling him a Nazi, is very detrimental to the country. The video shows her hypocracy in full detail. Did she have a problem when Bush endured the same? Did she mention on her show or anywhere else that THAT was detrimental and dangerous to the country? If you can find it, let me know....but don't waste your time looking for it. Of course you didn't get that message from the video....you ignored it in the same way you ignore anything else that goes against your comments. I DO agree that watching Rachel is a waste of time, though. We can agree on that

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

84 posted 2009-09-30 02:09 PM

    I do believe you're trying to call me racist.  How quaint.

No, Bob, I'm not calling you a racist at all. You did a good enough job of that without my help with your comment. Actually, to be fair, you didn't call yourself a racist. You simply called anyone against ACORN racists. How quaint.

I'd like to point out  there can be a difference between  somebody who takes a drug medicinally and somebody who takes it recreationally.

Tell that to Jennifer. She seems to be confused on that issue.

I should be very surprised indeed if one of your physicians had prescribed cocaine for you.  I doubt that you would qualify as a coke-head at all.

I would be  as equally surprised. I would be as equally surprised  if Limbaugh's doctor prescribed cocaine for him.

Oxycontin for Rush, I haven't heard about coke myself.

Neither has Jennifer, which doesn't stop her from calling him a coke-head anyway in her standard way of lashing out with  vile insults at the drop of a hat. If Rush, or any other human being, had a problem becoming addicted to a pain killer over a period of time, they have my sympathy. I am facing the same fear myself, having been on them for months now and wondering how it will be without them. Maybe I, myself, will become one of Jennifer-s coke-heads. I hope not.

If you feel funny about my description of the demographics, take a try yourself.

Bob, I have stopped feeling funny about any of your descriptions. I simply take them for what they are worth.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

85 posted 2009-09-30 02:17 PM

Where, other than the fact that she obviously disagrees with you on almost every political issue one might name, might you point to any defect? And why does this mean that her intellect is wasted if it leads to conclusions other than your own, for goodness sake? She is allowed to be bright, educated, competent and more liberal minded than you in my book without deserving this sort of ad hominem attack.

Change the "liberal" to "consevative", and Limbaugh and Hannity are also allowed. It's strange that you would rise to the defense of a liberal talk show host, chastising people for attacking her, with the comments you have made on multiple threads against Limbaugh and Hannity. It's the same selective criticism we have come to expect. Maddow showed an example of it on the link I gave to Jennifer which caused he to waste her time.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

86 posted 2009-09-30 03:21 PM

WDBO Local News
Alan Grayson says Republicans want you to die!
By
Mike Synan
@ September 30, 2009 5:50 AM Permalink | Comments (42)

Our freshman Congressman made that statement on the floor of the House last night, and it's sending shockwaves through Congress. Watch video below
It's something he's said before in group settings, but never in such hallowed place as the US Capitol on the House floor.

"This is what the Republicans want you to do. If you get sick America, the republican health care plan is this: Die quickly!"
http://wdbo.com/localnews/2009/09/alan-grayson-says-republicans.html

Soemone mention fear and hate mongering lies?

Considering Congress went ballistic over Wilson's YOU LIE comment, to the point of censure and everything else they could do to show their outrage, why have they nothing to say about this? Let me guess....this was belted out by a Democrat, which makes it a sensible and informative comment. Grayson was asked to apologize for spewing such garbage. He refused. Democrats don't apologize.

Fear and hate-mongering at it's best.......democrat-style.

JenniferMaxwell

Member Elite

since 2006-09-14

Posts 2423

87 posted 2009-09-30 07:18 PM

That reminds me, has Palin ever apologized for her "Obama's death panel" remark? I think she edited her remark a bit, but did she ever actually apologize to Obama?

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

88 posted 2009-09-30 09:10 PM

Dear Mike,

quote:

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

     Since you have pretty much dodged responding to my earlier post on ACORN and your accusations about it in favor of personal attacks on me and now of Ms Maddow and of course JM, I thought it might be helpful to refocus a bit.  The endless supply of new and more distant accusations seems to have lead us away from the focus of the thread, which was to examine the truth of some of the accusations about ACORN.  I have responded above to some of the accusations you have leveled with some frequency at this organization.  Rather than changing the subject to racism in the hope that I as a good liberal will drop what I'm doing and go after it, why not deal with the points that I bring up above.

      Rather than painting me or J.M. as unworthy to ask you to justify your accusations, why not simply answer them.  Our worthiness to ask legitimate questions is a red herring anyway.  The questions themselves demand the answers regardless of who asks them.  By not answering or at least saying that you are not going to answer, you do not affect my credibility, such as it may be, at all.  You simply call attention to your omission.

     And since you have be reasonably persistent in making the various accusations about ACORN, I would imagine that you would be eager to display from good first rate sources those places where ACORN has had all those arrests and investigations and especially convictions.  I would also like you to bend all your research skill to answering all your research skills to answering the question, how many cases of Voter Fraud have been brought to conviction over the last eight years versus the number of cases that have been brought?

BK

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

89 posted 2009-09-30 09:17 PM

quote:

No, Bob, I'm not calling you a racist at all. You did a good enough job of that without my help with your comment. Actually, to be fair, you didn't call yourself a racist. You simply called anyone against ACORN racists. How quaint.

Please cite that for me. I said no such thing.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

90 posted 2009-09-30 09:43 PM

The endless supply of new and more distant accusations seems to have lead us away from the focus of the thread, which was to examine the truth of some of the accusations about ACORN.

Apparently it's been so long since the beginning, you don't recall what the focus of the thread was. What it was was your getting a fund-raising letter comparing Fox talk show hosts' coverage of ACORN as opposed to their coverage of Haliburton and other scandals of the past. I responded in reply #30, which was not acknowledged and that's ok.

I DID respond to Jennifer's left wing video. Perhaps you missed it.

how many cases of Voter Fraud have been brought to conviction over the last eight years versus the number of cases that have been brought?

Louisiana and California have joined the dozens of states that have issued investigations and charges against ACORN. You want convictions? Stay tuned........

Please cite that for me. I said no such thing.

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

You do the math......

JenniferMaxwell

Member Elite

since 2006-09-14

Posts 2423

91 posted 2009-09-30 09:47 PM

Balladeer, if you'd actually watched or paid close attention to what was in the videos, you'd know the exact number of voter registration fraud convictions.
Care to take a wild and crazy guess?

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

92 posted 2009-09-30 10:03 PM

Jennifer, you are going to talk to me about paying attention to videos??? Please.....

As far as convictions are concerned, I'll respond the same way I responded to Bob....stay tuned.

JenniferMaxwell

Member Elite

since 2006-09-14

Posts 2423

93 posted 2009-09-30 10:05 PM

Shhhhh, I'm taking a break, doing some serious stuff.
http://www.zaiusnation.com/whackawingnut/index.html

Tim
Senior Member

since 1999-06-08

Posts 1794

94 posted 2009-09-30 10:41 PM

Mr. Grinch,

I had read that particular report before I made my first comment.

As I said, you can argue anything you want in a Court of Law. Even more so outside a Court of Law. I try to keep politics out of my legal reasoning and not rely on others but my own legal reasoning based upon legal precedent. I still feel comfortable in my analysis.

Had Congress cut funding to Haliburton, my opinion would be the same. I doubt the same would hold true on those now arguing the existence of a bill of attainder.
(As long as the case doesn't go to the Ninth Circuit)

Ringo

Member Elite

since 2003-02-20

Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes

95 posted 2009-10-01 12:21 PM

First of all... Bob, please check your e-mail.

Jennifer... once again, you are attempting to muddy the waters with false quotations about thigns I said. You know they were false, the entire populace keeping track of this knows they were false, and yet, you did it anyhow.
Then, you- once again- refer to personal attacks about someone who had not been brought into the discussion at all, and who has NO CHANCE AT ALL of affecting anything that happens in the government, having lost the election, and not being involved in governing at all.
Once again, these are the last ditch efforts of someone who is seeing their side of a discussion being blown into smithereens by the facts of a case, and by people who are speaking civilly, and respectfully to one another about their opinions. IF you will look back upon the thread (which you seem to be really good at) you will notice that no one else is actively and blatantly involving themsleves in such outright shenanigans. Mike has been accused of calling Bob a racist (respectfully), and he (again, respectfully) responded to the charges... and you continue to be disrespectful and argumentative...
Get a clue, Sweetheart.

As for your question to Mike... uh... wait, I need to check my source to ensure proper wording...

quote:
Balladeer, if you'd actually watched or paid close attention to what was in the videos, you'd know the exact number of voter registration fraud convictions.
Care to take a wild and crazy guess?

Well, MS. Maxwell...
I am going to allow you to "waste your time" with the followiing links.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/us/01acorn.html http://www.judicialwatch.org/.../acorn-criminally-charged-nevada [URL=http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/nevada-acorn-director-guilty-acorn-voter-fraud-august-19-2009-las-vegas-director-guilty-christopher-edwards-will-testify-against-a corn-]http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/nevada-acorn-director-guilty-acorn-voter-fraud-august-19-2009-las-vegas-director-guilty-christopher-edwards-will-testify-against- acorn-[/URL] amy-busefink-former-regional-voter-registration-director/ http://www.docstoc.com/docs/5806659/Nevada-v-ACORN

Convictions? No... however, the Attornety General of Nevada feels that there is enough to send them to trial.

To quote Mr. Balladeer...
Stand by for the convictions.

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

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

96 posted 2009-10-01 01:34 AM

Dear Mike,

1)

quote:
:

No, Bob, I'm not calling you a racist at all. You did a good enough job of that without my help with your comment. Actually, to be fair, you didn't call yourself a racist. You simply called anyone against ACORN racists. How quaint.

To which I replied:
Please cite that for me. I said no such thing.

Your reply was:

quote:

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

     None of these statements call anybody a racist.  Each one is a statement of demographic fact.  You may have difficulty between distinguishing, apparently, between descriptions of demographic fact and what the significance of those facts may be.

     It is not racist insofar as I can tell to understand that if people in the minority do not organize in their own interests, they will remain in the minority.  It is not racist to recognize the people in the voting majority will be threatened if the new voters are not of their party and do not agree with their politics.  The fact that the majority of voters were white and are now having large numbers of people of color added to their ranks is not a racist statement either.

     Perhaps you might locate for me exactly what is racist about what I said instead of simply pretending it is racist.
I have in fact done the math, Mike, and it doesn't add up.

     Your words were

quote:

You simply called anyone against ACORN racists.

They were not, You may have said something that might have been interpreted by somebody on a bad day to possibly to have meant such a thing, were they in a sour mood and inclined to interpret you as closed minded in every possible way. They were not, You might have approximated such a statement. They were unforgettably,

quote:

You simply called anyone against ACORN racists.

     Please show me where I used those words.

     I'm eager to see this, because I don't believe them to be true.

     Oddly, if you'd asked me whether I thought I was a racist, I would have said, Yes, that I was brought up that way, and that I was doing my best to be aware of it and to change it in myself as I saw it show up.  But you didn't.  Please feel free to accept that admission as a freebee.  It's on the house.  I hope that I do better with it as I get older.

2)
Bob asked:

quote:

how many cases of Voter Fraud have been brought to conviction over the last eight years versus the number of cases that have been brought?

Mike replies,

quote:

Louisiana and California have joined the dozens of states that have issued investigations and charges against ACORN. You want convictions? Stay tuned........

     So if I understand the answer correctly and can translate it into plain English, There's been a lot of effort on the Part of the Republicans to torpedo ACORN by bringing investigations an prosecutions against them.  They have instituted a full court press from as many directions as they have been able to do so, and for as long as they have been able to do so, and have been promising a flood of convictions now for years.  They are now continuing to promising a flood of convictions and are talking as if they already have them, but they don't.  Many of the investigations may indeed be on shaky ground, and may have been linked to the wave of firings of Justice department lawyers last year when these lawyers felt their cases did not have evidence to back up these cases that they were being pressured to bring by the Bush Justice Department.  This is apparently detailed in the new book coming out by the former Arizona Federal Attorney.

     Future promises offered are not the facts requested, facts which you have from time to time suggested meant that ACORN was an organization that was beyond the pale and should not be given serious attention as a group of community organizers.  Where are all these convictions?  Where is all the fire that you claim to be there?  Anybody can make charges; it takes more than a lively imagination in this country, one likes to think, actually to prove them.

     How many charges were made; how many were proved; how many convictions resulted?

     For somebody who seems so sure of the depth of the evil one confronts in looking at ACORN, I am puzzled why you refused to supply the information.  Unless the information falls far short of the hype you've supplied us.  Or that your sources have supplied you, which is probably closer to the actual situation.

BK

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

97 posted 2009-10-01 06:29 AM

Anybody can make charges; it takes more than a lively imagination in this country, one likes to think, actually to prove them.

That's true, Bob. And you know what they say about the wheels of justice....stay tuned.

JenniferMaxwell

Member Elite

since 2006-09-14

Posts 2423

98 posted 2009-10-01 06:33 AM

Ringo, when I asked you for links to the videos, you never responded. Denise was kind enough to put up links but none of those videos seemed to show what you allege you saw:

"I have seen the video of ACORN supporters beating a black man for selling t-shirts outside of a town hall meeting; I have seen with my own eyes ACORN members being led through a side door of a town hall meeting where the "regular" citizens were being pushed out the door,"

Put up the links now, point out the frames that show “ACORN supporters beating a black man for selling t-shirts”. Show us you’re not just part of the smear ACORN campaign.

“Convictions? No”
There you go, Balladeer. You can copy off Ringo’s homework. ACORN has never been convicted of committing “voter fraud”.

The Nevada case - sorry but I’m really not too outraged by the fact that ACORN workers got a $5.00 bonus for registering 21 people or more per shift. Kind of pales in comparison to the Sproul case, don’t you think? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4992730.ece

Ringo

Member Elite

since 2003-02-20

Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes

99 posted 2009-10-01 08:00 AM

As it is primarily only the four of us agruing, and as this thread has fallen to the level of "You said/I said"... I am going to head back to the original purpose of the thread.... talking about ACORN, and declaring a general amnesty and cease fire. I am hereby announcing that I will no longer answer to any charges of anything, and will not reply to any personal threads.

Now then:
The New York Times (a liberal elite media source, by one editor's admission) has stated:

quote:
The community activist organization Acorn was ordered Wednesday to stand trial on charges that it violated Nevada law by offering bonuses to employees who registered 21 or more new voters in any given shift.
Under Nevada law, it is illegal to attach incentives to voter registration work, in part because doing so gives canvassers a motive to submit fraudulent forms, of which there were thousands resulting from Acorn’s registration drive here in Clark County last year...
At a hearing Tuesday, Mr. Edwards described how he and Ms. Busefink had debated whether to make the bonus threshold as high as 26 people registered but had settled on 21 because, Mr. Edwards said, “hey, it’s Las Vegas — it’s blackjack.”
Mr. Edwards also told the judge that Ms. Busefink visited the Las Vegas office after the program had started and that a whiteboard showed indications of incentive payments that she did not question...
Acorn and Ms. Busefink are to be arraigned on Oct. 14. Matthew Henderson, the Southwest regional representative for the organization, said this was the first time it had faced criminal prosecution...
Secretary of State Ross Miller investigated at the behest of the Clark County registrar of voters, Larry Lomax, who had noted that a large number of the forms Acorn turned in carried the names of famous football players and cartoon characters.

Now, before any of you decidethat this is just the right-wing smear campaign at high speed, keep this in mind:
Both the Clark County registrar and the Attorney General of Nevada are solidly encamped on the left side of the isle.

Any intelligent, respectful thoughts?

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

JenniferMaxwell

Member Elite

since 2006-09-14

Posts 2423

100 posted 2009-10-01 10:17 AM

No one’s charging you with anything, Ringo. All I asked for was a link. Looks to me like you’ve tried about every bluff in the book to avoid doing that and just so you know, that’s the really annoying part, the bluff.

Anyway, if you haven’t got the goods, no problem. Though false accusations are a sin in some people’s book, that biblical false witness thing, everyone makes mistakes. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you simply made a mistake.
Have a nice day!

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

101 posted 2009-10-01 10:29 AM

Lol, you mean like the Democrats calling the anti-big government protestors Nazis, racists, and terrorists, or Maddow calling the Tea Party participants 'teabaggers', Jennifer?

Ringo said he saw the Acorn folks, in person, with his own eyes. How can he give you a link for that?

As far as the guy getting beat up in the video link I provided, true it wasn't Acorn, but SEIU. Easy to mix them up, though, since they are joined at the hip. One is headed by one Rathke brother, the other by another Rathke brother, whom Michael referred to as the 'white guys' who were the leaders of Acorn. They were both with Acorn until the one was found to have embezzled money, whereupon he quietly left and went to SEIU.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

102 posted 2009-10-01 10:57 AM

     Yes, of course.  A reference to The New York Times is nice.  The notion of one of its editors saying that it is is an elite Liberal media source deserves to be referenced as to which editor where and when he said it, and which publication that statement appeared in.  The acknowledgement of The NYTimes as being Liberal by people on the paper sounds a bit of a stretch, given the range of coverage it publishes, and the use of the word "elite" by an editor of the Times seems a bit out of character.  Many of us Liberals find the use of the word 'elite" used in describing us smacks of distortion and even propaganda; and for an Editor of the Times to agree to use it suggests that there's something odd going on that needs to be clarified.  It may be possible, but the way you've got it phrased here raises all sorts of red flags.

     Secondly, if you are going to reference the New York Times, I'd like to be able to check the article out myself.  Therefore it would be helpful for me to have enough of a citation to do so.  A link would be helpful if you can get one, but the date of the article would be helpful as well.

     Third, this is more announcement of prosecutions.  It says nothing of the value of the case or even of the constitutionality of the law it is brought under.  Why should Nevada wish to limit the number of new voters a person could register in a day when any false registrations are already wrong?  Does this seem to be a bit strange to you?  Because it does to me.

     I was always encouraged to vote when I reached 21, and here is Nevada trying to discourage people from doing so by limiting the number of voters a community organizing organization can afford to register.  This seems to be at cross purposes with those American ideals that I was taught as a child.

     What your response does do is underline the avidity with which the Right is seeking to convict ACORN of voter fraud somewhere.  ACORN is mentioned often and in a universally negative light in the speech of the Right in both Houses of Congress, in the mouths of the  Right leaning talk show hosts, and in the mouths of the rank and file of those on the right.  The name is almost always attached to reports of convictions and allegations of illegalities and investigations.  The reports of the investigations are true, at lease some portion of them.  The allegations of illegalities have not been proven and as far as I know there haven been any convictions.

     And in the posting that I am responding to here, Ringo is suggesting the same general thing.  He is not stating it, he is suggesting it.  We are justified in whatever the Right choses to do to ACORN because of the certainty that at some future time ACORN will be proven guilty of something, which will justify this whole mess.

     I would suggest that in this country we are supposed to punish people after a guilty verdict in a court of law.  The punishment does not come first.  You do not hang somebody then grant them a speedy trial.  Though that is what seems to be happening with ACORN.

JenniferMaxwell

Member Elite

since 2006-09-14

Posts 2423

103 posted 2009-10-01 11:02 AM

“As far as the guy getting beat up in the video link I provided, true it wasn't Acorn”.

Thanks, Denise, hearing that from you makes me feel a lot better. I was beginning to think I was wrong and thus had belabored a point that had no merit.

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

104 posted 2009-10-01 12:45 PM

Bob, it seems to me that Nevada merely forbids financial bonuses for registrations, not registrations themselves.

And you now understand what Ringo was saying to you as well, Jennifer, that he actually witnessed Acorn workers, in person, at a meeting, with his own eyes (no link necessary), and you also now understand whom Michael was referring to when he said the leaders of Acorn were white?

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

105 posted 2009-10-01 02:49 PM

quote:
Any intelligent, respectful thoughts?

I have some thoughts.

quote:
The community activist organization Acorn was ordered Wednesday to stand trial on charges that it violated Nevada law by offering bonuses to employees who registered 21 or more new voters in any given shift.

And so they should, if there's enough evidence that they offered bonuses, and offering bonuses is illegal, a court is the correct place to settle the issue. If found guilty they will presumably face the normal punishment which will persuade them not to break the law with regard to offering bonuses in the future. If acquitted they'll hopefully be non-the-worse for their brush with the courts which, on a positive note, may at least send a clear message to others that law breaking will not be tolerated.

I'd say the same if the charges were related to voter fraud, if evidence is found that ACORN was actively involved in any case where a fraudulent vote was cast then they should be prosecuted. I haven't heard of such a case, but if one existed it should be settled by due process.

.

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

106 posted 2009-10-01 04:16 PM

Here you go Bob:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/us/01acorn.html

.

JenniferMaxwell

Member Elite

since 2006-09-14

Posts 2423

107 posted 2009-10-01 04:41 PM

Who do you consider to be the “top officers of ACORN”, Denise, (The words in quotes are Balladeer’s from #63.) and if someone is totally wrong about what they said they saw in one instance, as you pointed out, (trying very hard to put this nicely) then how confident would you be they were correct about what they claim to have seen in another?

Yes, I agree with you, Denise. As I understand it, it was paying the $5 bonus that was illegal. Honestly, I just skimmed the articles so indeed I could have missed something. Anyway, seems a bit silly doesn’t it, since it’s ok to pay the workers for doing the job, yet it’s not ok to give them a cost of a cup of coffee bonus for doing it well? And, as I mentioned, the whole case pales in comparison to the alleged fraud in the Sproul case. Here’s the link again in case you missed it. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article499 2730.ece

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

108 posted 2009-10-01 05:53 PM

Fastest fingerpoint in the West!

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

109 posted 2009-10-01 06:03 PM

Michelle Obama's old law firm is representing ACORN's board in an internal embezzlement case that legal experts say could result in criminal charges.

During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama and his running-mate, Joe Biden, insisted they had nothing to do with ACORN after the inner-city advocacy group became engulfed in controversy over voter-registration fraud.

However, federal election records showed that the Obama campaign paid ACORN subsidiary Citizens Services Inc. $832,598 for get-out-the-vote activities, of which $80,000 went directly to ACORN. CSI and some 290 other ACORN subsidiaries operate out of the same building on Elysian Fields Avenue in New Orleans that serves as ACORN's national headquarters. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=84434

Yep, Obama got them over 800,000.00, claiming the money was for lighting and video expenses. When called on it, he retracted that excuse and claimed it ws for their "get out the vote" campaign (obviously knowing where the votes they were getting out would go to).

Bonuses weren't given out to employees for doing their jobs well...they were for doing their jobs badly....hence the thousands of fictional voters that were created.

JenniferMaxwell

Member Elite

since 2006-09-14

Posts 2423

110 posted 2009-10-01 06:25 PM

Again, pales in comparison to the Sproul case:

“The career of Mr Sproul, a former leader of the Arizona Republican Party, is littered with accusations of foul play. In Minnesota in 2004, his firm was accused of sacking workers who submitted Democratic registration forms, while other canvassers were allegedly paid bonuses for registering Bush voters. There were similar charges in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Oregon and Nevada.

That year, Mr Sproul’s firm was paid $8,359,161 by the Republican Party, according to a 2005 article in the Baltimore Chronicle, which claimed that this was far more than what had been reported to the Federal Elections Commission.”

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

111 posted 2009-10-01 06:31 PM

Point all you want, Jennifer, even when you have to go back five years to do it. It has nothing to do with ACORN's activities, as you well know. The smokescreen really doesn't work that well here.....

JenniferMaxwell

Member Elite

since 2006-09-14

Posts 2423

112 posted 2009-10-01 06:51 PM

Speaking of smokescreens,how many years ago did the First Lady leave Sidley Austin?

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

113 posted 2009-10-01 06:58 PM

LOL...travel down the sidestreets by yourself, J. I really have better things to do.

Go back to the maneating burger. That suits you better

JenniferMaxwell

Member Elite

since 2006-09-14

Posts 2423

114 posted 2009-10-01 07:03 PM

Oh good, it must still be up. I thought I'd broken it.
Have a nice evening, Balladeer.

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

115 posted 2009-10-01 07:58 PM

I took Michael to mean the Rathke Brothers, Jennifer.

JenniferMaxwell

Member Elite

since 2006-09-14

Posts 2423

116 posted 2009-10-01 08:59 PM

Ah, I see, but haven't they both been gone from ACORN for more than a year or so?

Anyway, in a way I'm sort of glad things are coming to a head for ACORN. With strong, committed, trustworthy leadership, and I think Lewis meets that criteria, better trained local management and proper oversight, I think they could get back on track and continue to do the good work they were set up to do.

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

117 posted 2009-10-01 10:01 PM

Not to my knowledge, Jennifer. The last I heard the one was still the head of Acorn (although I heard he applied to have the name changed, I think to International Assoc. of Community Organizations) and the other one, the embezzler, the one whom Lewis replaced, went to a top spot at SEIU.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

118 posted 2009-10-01 10:04 PM

     So, thanks for the citation for the New York Times article, Grinch.  Apparently the material on the Editor of the New York Times wasn't included in that article.  I had expected it would be.

     ACORN had turned in the folks who'd turned in the historically spurious votes in Clark County.  While the spurious votes were included in Ringo's comment, and thus gave the impression of wrong-doing, the fact that ACORN themselves had pointed out the spurious registrations — or at least many of them — first  alters the slant.  B y not offering this information, Ringo allows his readers to infer that ACORN was behind the deception and was hoping to put one over on Clark County.  With the addition of this information, events appear to show ACORN attempting to make sure that it was offering a good list to Clark County, and that ACORN had been taken in by some dishonest contractors.  That difference is significant and one that Ringo should have presented, had he wanted to present a fair version of his case instead of a slanted one.

     I made my comments about the nature of the law involved in the current brouhaha above.

     That someone might suggest that this was voter fraud — the registration of voters who are not eligible to vote — seems to me to be a stretch of the imagination.  The crime was the payment of a five dollar bonus for finding 21 new voters to register, not submitting false names for registration, something that as I understand it, is supposed to be checked further down the line in the registration process anyway.  This was apparently where ACORN picked up the spurious registration from the dishonest employees last year and where the Election board, doing further checks, picked up some additional.

     That would account for the fact, reported in the Time Article we are discussing, that ACORN picked up most of the bogus registrations but not all of them.   Perhaps someone else has more details about this than I do.

     In Ringo could let us know — myself and the others who are following this thread — where he got the information about that Editor from the New York Times, I would be grateful.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

119 posted 2009-10-01 10:43 PM

Dear Mike,

          Are you actually throwing out cartoons calling folks names without specifying whom you are speaking about?

     Perhaps you might actually come up with some of that information on convictions?  You've been talking about the nastiness of ACORN, and you've been making allegations of voter fraud for quite a long time.  When asked to come up with examples of convictions I find you full of promises but no information.

     And now this spray of unpleasantness without point. What point you believes this makes I find to be mysterious and as near as I can tell unproductive in furthering any sort of rational discussion.  Why not simply make a point about the discussion rather than engage in Ad Hominem attacks directed at those who disagree with you?    You are substituting it for something reasonable and to the point that could further your cause or even lead you into new ground.

     I am not asking that you concede anything.  I'm asking that you use your energy to think through what you want to say.

     I've mentioned why I think ACORN is a particular Right Wing target, and why it's out of proportion with the amount of money that it accepts from the government.  I've mentioned why community organizing is a tactic that is one that the Right has difficulty with.  The extension of the Right's campaign to Unions at this point seems reasonably predictable to me.  While very flawed in many ways, Unions do address the power differential between workers and management/ownership.  The Right has been very effective against unions over the past fifty years or so.  I think that needs to change.  That is probably subject for another thread, though.

     Can you actually justify the campaign against ACORN on the basis of actual voter fraud that ACORN has been convicted of, as opposed to the things that the right is claiming about it without proof that has stood up to legal scrutiny.

     Can you, in fact, prove the actual existence of the rampant crime of voter fraud through the convictions against any organizations in large numbers, say more than fifty in the entire country over the past ten years?  That may actually be possible, but I'd like to see the convictions, and I'd like to know who they were against.

     Then, perhaps we can discuss the presence of election fraud, which I believe is an active problem in this country.
But first, the Republican and Right Wing issue in General is voter fraud; and I'd like to see if you can actually prove the existence of any large numbers of voter fraud convictions in this country.  There have been many cries of wolf, yes; but I'm asking about the confirmed counts of wolf pelts that all these years of voter fraud hunting have succeeded in putting on the Republican Walls in this country.

     How many are they, and where are the convictions that put them there?

BK

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

120 posted 2009-10-02 12:48 PM

Bob, the voter fraud is a distant second to me in terms of importance. I despised ACORN when they used threats, coercion and intimidation tactics to force banks to give unsecured loans to people who had little chance of making payments. I despise them because they helped to create the flood of foreclosures and the damage to the housing and banking industries.

If you agree with those tactics and applaud the fact that they caused thousands of people to lose their homes because they couldn't afford payments that they were never supposed to be able to afford and you can applaud the damage they did to the banking industry by forcing the unsecured loans on them through intimidation then I don't understand your way of thinking at all.

THAT'S what I want them to pay for. SInce they are never going to be held responsible for that, I don't care what the charges are that brings them down. I think of them like the feds felt about Capone, unable to get him for murder, kidnapping, protection rackets, and a shopping list of other crimes they took tax evasion to lock him away. If voter registration is the path, fine by me.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

121 posted 2009-10-02 03:36 AM

Then perhaps you might document the involvement of ACORN in the banking crisis, to start off with. Try beginning by citing any offenses they have been tried for and convicted in in regard to banking. Where and when have there been any such convictions?

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

122 posted 2009-10-02 08:54 AM

Where and when have there been any such convictions?

Ah, Bob, if you want information on ACORN's activities with the banking situation and the tactics they used to force banks to give unsecured loans, the internet is loaded with them and I have little doubt you know that. If you don't want to take two minutes to look them up, that's fine with me.

No, there were no convictions and that's my point. Capone was not convicted for murder or racketeering, either. O.J. played a lot of golf for years after committing the crimes he "didn't commit". The feds had no qualms about putting Capone away for something as non-violent as income tax evasion and O.J. for his "stealing back my stuff" charade and I would have no problem seeing ACORN taken down for voter fraud, giving out "how to cheat on your taxes" guidelines, or anything else they are dumb enough to get involved in.

JenniferMaxwell

Member Elite

since 2006-09-14

Posts 2423

123 posted 2009-10-02 11:00 AM

You forgot Barney Frank, Balladeer. That’s what you usually say, the banking/mortgage crisis was caused by ACORN and Barney Frank. Just a gentle reminder for you and a little something to help Bob color in the picture.

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

124 posted 2009-10-02 01:19 PM

ACORN and the banking crisis.

Hmm.

I remember reading a very good article not long ago on that very subject. I didn't take much notice of it, I was researching something else at the time, but I'll try to dig it out this weekend. As I recall it suggested that ACORN had little impact on the banking crisis.

I'll let you know what I find.

.

JenniferMaxwell

Member Elite

since 2006-09-14

Posts 2423

125 posted 2009-10-02 01:39 PM

A place to start that also notes other sources:
http://mediamattersaction.org/factcheck/200909250007

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

126 posted 2009-10-02 03:49 PM

quote:
I despised ACORN when they used threats, coercion and intimidation tactics to force banks to give unsecured loans to people who had little chance of making payments. I despise them because they helped to create the flood of foreclosures and the damage to the housing and banking industries.

Could you expand this a little Mike it'll help me find the evidence to form an opinion.

At the moment I'm in data collection mode - what should I concentrate on?

I've been looking at the CRA as a starting point, the reason it was instigated, the amendments made over the years and what effect it had on both banks and their interaction with community organisations like ACORN. Am I looking in the right place?

.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

127 posted 2009-10-02 03:55 PM

Jennifer, Barney Frank is a given. Everyone knows that by just watching the video of him proclaiming the soundness of Fanni and Freddie at the same time he was being advised they were in trouble and heading for disaster. I think he labeled that talk some "right wing conspiracy". WIsh I had the patent on that phrase. I'd be rich....

Grinch, ACORN forced banks through intimidation tactics to give mortgages to people who had insufficient collateral or ability to make the payments. I don't have any figures to back this up but I feel fairly confident that many of those mortgages are the ones that have recently been foreclosed on. That would be a logical assumption.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

128 posted 2009-10-02 06:38 PM

     No legal grounds for making the determination of guilt, no figures to back you up, you make assumptions of guilt which I do not share and you expect me to come up withy the sources for you because "they are all over the internet," if I understand you correctly?  Is that approximately your case at this point?

     When I put it this way, which is the way it does sound to me, one might assume that a reasonable and objective person looking at the case for your prosecutorial position would have to vote to  acquit.  You haven''t met the burden of proof for a criminal trial, nor even, I think, for a civil trial, which is lower.  What you have done is repeat allegations loudly and often.

     You have not shown the the number of mortgages run through fanny-may or Freddy Mac were enough to have produced the crash, or whether it was the resale of the mortgages plus other mortgages which were not at all affected by red-lining laws plus the de-regulation of the banking/insurance separation previously enforced by Federal law plus who knows what all other factors, including the way the funding of the national debt was handled that produced the crisis.

     You have offered a fast catch-phrase of a solution and refused to look at anything else.  And refused actually to prove the allegations you have made.  Where you got these ideas originally, I don't know.  What made you draw the inference that there was any connection between ACORN and the housing crisis anyway?  It seems a somewhat odd connection to draw, and I'd be interested in knowing why you decided this was the chain of reasoning that explained the housing crunch?  It is not one that I would have come to.

     I remain unconvinced that your proof about Barney Frank rises to the level of "a given."  To the extent that the Barney Frank issues bear on ACORN, you might try to discuss them here; but I remain unconvinced that they are more than a distraction.  First, prove what you've said about ACORN.

BK

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

129 posted 2009-10-02 08:11 PM

quote:
It is not one that I would have come to.

Maybe not Bob, but there is, as Mike has said, some logic in that assumption.

ACORN pushed for access to mortgages in redlined areas, areas were redlined because they contained high numbers of people on or just above the poverty line. People on the poverty line are most susceptible to foreclosure when the economy fluctuates - so it's a logical assumption that they are the people defaulting on their sub-prime mortgage payments.

The issue isn't whether it's a logical assumption; it's whether it's a correct assumption.

At this point I don't think it is, from the little research I've done so far my guess is that it went something like this:

The CRA was introduced to encourage banks to offer loans and mortgages in previously redlined areas. They weren't told to offer cheap mortgages, or unsecured mortgages or mortgages of a value greater than the worth of the property being mortgaged. In fact the CRA stipulated the exact opposite. As an incentive the government promised to look favourably on any bank that could show that it was supplying CRA eligible loans. What the banks got out of the deal was a free pass when it came to expanding across state boundaries, mergers, and acquisitions.

At this point everyone was happy, the people who couldn't previously get loans because of where they lived got loans at the same rates as everyone else. The banks got a little more freedom to grow plus more income from the extra loans and the inner city areas were rejuvenated by all the new homeowners, which cheered the government up no end. The community organisations like ACORN meanwhile thought they'd won a victory.

All that didn't last though. By this time the banks had realised that they could sell more mortgages if they weren't too particular when it came to checking that the people they sold them to could actually afford them. In a market where house prices were skyrocketing there was little risk in such a tactic. If the homeowner defaulted the bank foreclosed and made a tidy profit reselling the house. This is where the picture gets a little confusing. The community organisations like ACORN didn't like it when the banks started touting their dodgy loans in the inner city areas, and for good reason if you think about it, they were trying to get people housed not evicted for non-payment. They complained to the government about those types of loans and actually predicted that they'd lead to mass foreclosure and a crash in the housing market and it all got a little heated.

The banks in the CRA scheme, worried that they might lose their CRA status and all the advantages that came with it started to court the community organisations by offering them funding. The community organisations, now aware of their newly found power started demanding more loans in CRA areas and an uneasy standoff ensued for years.

In the meantime the banks were getting even more lax with the eligibility criteria for the loans they offered and had the novel idea of bundling them up and selling them on for a quick profit. Then when the housing market stuttered some bright spark pointed out that all those sub prime mortgages probably weren't worth as much as everyone thought. When banks started to look at what they had they realised that they were only worth a fraction of their face value and when people started to default on their mortgages the whole house of cards came tumbling down.

Fortunately for the people in previously redlined areas were sold fewer of those types of mortgages so negative equity took a little longer to hit them. Unfortunately the downturn in the economy didn't. As Mike logically assumed, a lot of them, like a lot of other folks who hadn't really played a major part in the sub prime fiasco lost their homes because they were on a tight budget and low income. They were bound to really, they were the most susceptible but people naturally assumed when all the foreclosures happened that they'd caused the whole thing.

The above is an early opinion. In reality I'd have preferred more time to gather more information but I think it's close enough for a first stab. Feel free put me right where I've obviously goofed.

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

130 posted 2009-10-02 09:00 PM

There is a special on Fox News starting right now , 9 PM EST, called the Truth About Acorn. Check it out to see if it answers anyone's questions.

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

131 posted 2009-10-03 05:16 AM

I'm still a little confused by the name Fox News.

Will it be actual news or simply biased opinion based on half-truths and conjecture?

I don't mind the news articles, at least the few I've read, but their opinion based stuff I've seen has been garbage.

.

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

132 posted 2009-10-03 09:32 AM

It was a report on Acorn's activities, highlighting their voter registration tactics and their storming of the board rooms of different banks and lending facilities demanding payment to Acorn for supposed descrimiation in lending practices, and accusations of predatory lending when the financial institutions did lend to high-risk folks but then had the audacity to expect payment when the borrowers found they couldn't afford it.

The founder of Acorn, Wade Rathke, was also interviewed throughout giving him a chance to explain or defend those actions, which he attempted, poorly, I thought.

I learned though that he did indeed resign as the head of Acorn in 2008 when it became public knowledge that his brother Dale had embezzled money from an Acorn affiliate 10 years ago, and kept that information from the board, whereupon he started another group, Community Organizers International, taking his Acorn philosophies and strategies global.

He was also the founder and still head of SEIU local 100, which shares headquarters space with Acorn.

I also had confirmed that there have been dozens of convictions in several states for voter registration and voter fraud.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-complete-guide-to-acorn-voter-fraud/

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

133 posted 2009-10-03 12:16 PM

Denise,

Do you mean accusations of voter fraud or accusations of voter registration fraud? You seem to use the two as if they're the same thing when, like Fox news items and Fox opinion items, the two are definitely not the same.

.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

134 posted 2009-10-03 01:22 PM

It was a report on Acorn's activities, highlighting their voter registration tactics and their storming of the board rooms of different banks and lending facilities demanding payment to Acorn for supposed descrimiation in lending practices, and accusations of predatory lending when the financial institutions did lend to high-risk folks but then had the audacity to expect payment when the borrowers found they couldn't afford it.

That is a topic worthy of consideration. It was little more the the protection rackets of the 20'2 used by organized crime.

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

135 posted 2009-10-03 01:41 PM

quote:
That is a topic worthy of consideration.

I agree, whether there's any truth to the accusation is certainly worth considering.

Is there any evidence we can look at that may validate the claim?

.

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

136 posted 2009-10-03 01:42 PM

Voter election fraud was the charge in one of the states, Missouri, Grinch, for voter registration fraud. It seems like it could be the catch-all charge for either.

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

137 posted 2009-10-03 02:29 PM

Voter fraud and voter registration fraud are two very different things Denise. One is the act of casting a fraudulent or illegal vote or manipulating the votes cast the other is the act of purposely falsifying information to register to vote.

This distinction is probably why ACORN has never been prosecuted for either. As an organisation they cannot cast a fraudulent vote as votes are cast by individuals. Equally as they play no part in the voting process itself they have no opportunity to manipulate the votes once cast. They could be accused of voter registration fraud however to prove that you'd need to show a clear intention to defraud. As the process of registration includes an official who clears all applications before they're registered that isn't that easy, it's made even more difficult because ACORN are legally obliged to present to that official all completed forms, to do otherwise is a federal crime.

As I understand it the average number of forms presented for registration that are rejected as incomplete or containing false information is 5% of the total forms presented. The average rejection rate of forms presented by ACORN is 7%, I haven't yet found the figures for Conservative groups that are involved in voter registration but I'd suggest that due to the nature of their work their rejection figures are comparable.

This begs a question. If Conservative groups are following the same rules which stipulate that all forms are presented, whether obviously containing false information or not, could they be equally accused of voter registration fraud?

BTW how did the Missouri case go?

.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

138 posted 2009-10-03 03:05 PM

Grinch, you may find this article interesting...
http://community.adn.com/adn/node/132703

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

139 posted 2009-10-03 03:29 PM

IN April 1992, Talbott filed an other precedent-setting com plaint using the "community support requirements" of the 1989 savings-and-loan bailout, this time against Avondale Federal Bank for Savings. Within a month, Chicago ACORN had organized its first "bank fair" at Malcolm X College and found 16 Chicago-area financial institutions willing to participate.

Two months later, aided by ACORN organizer Sandra Maxwell, Talbott announced plans to conduct demonstrations in the lobbies of area banks that refused to attend an ACORN-sponsored national bank "summit" in New York. She insisted that banks show a commitment to minority lending by lowering their standards on downpayments and underwriting - for example, by overlooking bad credit histories.

By September 1992, The Chicago Tribune was describing Talbott's program as "affirma- tive-action lending" and ACORN was issuing fact sheets bragging about relaxations of credit standards that it had won on behalf of minorities.

And Talbott continued her effort to, as she put it, drag banks "kicking and screaming" into high-risk loans. A September 1993 story in The Chicago Sun-Times presents her as the leader of an initiative in which five area financial institutions (including two of her former targets, now plainly cowed - Bell Federal Savings and Avondale Federal Savings) were "participating in a $55 million national pilot program with affordable-housing group ACORN to make mortgages for low- and moderate-income people with troubled credit histories."

What made this program different from others, the paper added, was the participation of Fannie Mae - which had agreed to buy up the loans. "If this pilot program works," crowed Talbott, "it will send a message to the lending community that it's OK to make these kind of loans."

Well, the pilot program "worked," and Fannie Mae's message that risky loans to minorities were "OK" was sent. The rest is financial-meltdown history.

IT would be tough to find an "on the ground" community organizer more closely tied to the subprime-mortgage fiasco than Madeline Talbott. And no one has been more supportive of Madeline Talbott than Barack Obama. http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/09292008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/os_dangerous_pals_131216.htm

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

140 posted 2009-10-03 03:32 PM

Talbot, we learn, was so impressed by Obama’s organizing skills that she invited him to help train her own staff.

And what exactly was Talbot’s work with Acorn? Talbot turns out to have been a key leader of that attempt by Acorn to storm the Chicago City Council (during a living-wage debate). While Sol Stern mentions this story in passing, the details are worth a look: On July 31, 1997, six people were arrested as 200 Acorn protesters tried to storm the Chicago City Council session. According to the Chicago Daily Herald, Acorn demonstrators pushed over the metal detector and table used to screen visitors, backed police against the doors to the council chamber, and blocked late-arriving aldermen and city staff from entering the session.

Reading the Herald article, you might think Acorn’s demonstrators had simply lost patience after being denied entry to the gallery at a packed meeting. Yet the full story points in a different direction. This was not an overreaction by frustrated followers who couldn’t get into a meeting (there were plenty of protestors already in the gallery), but almost certainly a deliberate bit of what radicals call “direct action,” orchestrated by Acorn’s Madeleine Talbot. As Talbot was led away handcuffed, charged with mob action and disorderly conduct, she explicitly justified her actions in storming the meeting. This was the woman who first drew Obama into his alliance with Acorn, and whose staff Obama helped train. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDZiMjkwMDczZWI5ODdjOWYxZTIzZGIyNzEyMjE0ODI=&w=MQ==

As Carl Horowitz of the National Legal and Policy Center notes:

    “In July 1997 … roughly 200 ACORN protestors stormed a session of the Chicago City Council (which was discussing “living wage” issues at that time), pushing over the metal detector and table used to screen visitors, backing police against doors, and blocking entrance to the room by late-arriving alderman and staff; six persons were arrested in the fracas.”

On another occasion, ACORN dispatched four busloads of protesters to the site of Baltimore mayor Martin O’Malley’s home, where they screamed profanities at the mayor and his family. Additional ACORN members, meanwhile, piled mounds of garbage in front of Baltimore’s City Hall to protest the alleged paucity of services in the area’s poor neighborhoods. “We’re up in their face,” an ACORN representative said proudly.

In 1995 ACORN protested what it characterized as the Republican-led Congress’ proposed “spending cuts” on welfare programs. (In actuality, no cuts were being proposed; the Republicans were calling for an increase in welfare spending, but it was a smaller increase than ACORN wanted.) The New York Post describes the scene of this ACORN demonstration:

    “House Speaker Newt Gingrich was scheduled to address a meeting of county commissioners at the Washington Hilton. But, first, some 500 protesters from [ACORN] poured into the ballroom from both the kitchen and the main entrance. Hotel staffers who tried to block them were quickly overwhelmed by demonstrators chanting, ‘Nuke Newt!’ and ‘We want Newt!’ Jamming the aisles, carrying bullhorns and taunting the assembled county commissioners, demonstrators swiftly took over the head table and commandeered the microphone, sending two members of Congress scurrying. The demonstrators' target, Gingrich, hadn't yet arrived -- and his speech was cancelled. When the cancellation was announced, ACORN's foot soldiers cheered.”

Such tactics are by no means a thing of the past for ACORN. As recently as June 2009, an angry mob of at least 150 ACORN protesters nearly knocked New York state Sen. James Alesi, a Republican, down to the floor and also spat in the face of his chief of staff. The protesters were reportedly upset that two Democratic senators had decided to caucus with Republicans — a move that, when finalized by the state Senate, would hand Republicans control of that body.

As noted above, housing activism is a major priority for ACORN, which has formed housing collectives in a host of targeted areas. These collectives pressure local authorities to place them (the collectives) in charge of renovating and managing abandoned or dilapidated properties for poor tenants. In turn, the local authorities provide money for renovation -- much of which ends up in ACORN bank accounts. The tenants are compelled to "earn" their new homes by investing "sweat equity"; i.e., working without pay on renovating the properties. ACORN or its designated "housing collective" retains title to the land on which these buildings stand. If the tenants decide to move out, they are required to sell their property back to ACORN, at cost, no matter what the market value of the property. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6968
Just as ACORN was heavily involved in voter-registration fraud, so was it a key player in the chain of events and policies that led to the housing and banking crash of 2008. That crisis had its roots in the 1977 passage of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), a federal law that outlawed “redlining” (the refusal of banks to lend money to borrowers located in areas known for their high default rates on loans). The CRA required banks to extend credit to undercapitalized, high-risk borrowers in low-income, mostly-minority areas. The Act also established extensive government oversight to monitor how well banks were complying with its mandates.

Under CRA guidelines, any bank wishing to expand or to merge with another financial institution would be required to first demonstrate that it had complied with all CRA rules. Final approval for expansions or mergers could be stalled, or derailed entirely, if "community groups" like ACORN were to accuse a bank -- however frivolously or unjustly -- of having violated the mandates of CRA.

In the early 1990s ACORN, thus empowered by the CRA, insisted that banks demonstrate their commitment to minority lending by drastically lowering their standards on down-payments and underwriting, and by making loans even to borrowers -- especially nonwhite minorities -- with bad credit histories. If banks expressed reluctance to do so, ACORN intimidated them into compliance by threatening to sue them, to smear them in the media with negative-publicity campaigns (accusing them of racist and anti-immigrant lending practices), and to block any mergers which the banks might seek in the future. These threats were often accompanied by rowdy crowds of ACORN demonstrators swarming bank offices and lobbies.

In response, terrified bank executives routinely agreed to appoint ACORN as their official “advisor” on CRA compliance, thereby giving the group carte blanche to channel loans to its own hand-picked recipients. One ACORN leader boasted that her organization had become proficient at dragging banks "kicking and screaming" into high-risk loans for low-income people with shady credit histories. By September 1992, ACORN was issuing fact sheets broadcasting its success in having forced lenders to lower their credit standards on behalf of minorities. Ultimately, ACORN proudly claimed “credit for saving the CRA.”

The New York Post explains what happened next:

    “As ACORN ran its campaigns against local banks, it quickly hit a roadblock. Banks would tell ACORN they could afford to reduce their credit standards by only a little -- since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the federal mortgage giants, refused to buy up those risky loans for sale on the ‘secondary market.’

    “That is, the CRA wasn't enough. Unless Fannie and Freddie were willing to relax their credit standards as well, local banks would never make home loans to customers with bad credit histories or with too little money for a down-payment.

    “So ACORN's Democratic friends in Congress moved to force Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to dispense with normal credit standards. Throughout the early '90s, they imposed ever-increasing subprime-lending quotas on Fannie and Freddie….

    “ACORN's intimidation tactics, and its alliance with Democrats in Congress, triumphed. Despite their 1994 takeover of Congress, Republicans' attempts to pare back the CRA were stymied….

    “ACORN had come to Congress not only to protect the CRA from GOP [Republican] reforms but also to expand the reach of quota-based lending to Fannie, Freddie and beyond….

    “[In June 1995] the Clinton administration announced a comprehensive strategy to push homeownership in America to new heights -- regardless of the compromise in credit standards that the task would require. Fannie and Freddie were assigned massive subprime lending quotas, which would rise to about half of their total business by the end of the decade.”

This strengthening of the CRA’s loan mandates, coupled with the authority that ACORN and other “community organizations” were given to intervene at yearly bank reviews, placed ACORN and likeminded activist groups in a position of great influence. Banks, eager to receive good reports from these groups (in order to avoid having their merger plans blocked or their lending practices challenged by the Justice Department), funneled immense sums of money to ACORN, et al.  As the New York Post puts it, “intimidation tactics, public charges of racism and threats to use CRA to block business expansion have enabled ACORN to extract hundreds of millions of dollars in loans and contributions from America's financial institutions.”

One financial-industry consultant explains, with resignation: “The banks know they are being held up, but they are not going to fight over this. They look at it as a cost of doing business.”

According to author and political analyst Michelle Malkin, in 2005 ACORN’s San Diego office “publicly announced a partnership with Citibank to secure home loans for illegal aliens.” Wrote Malkin in September 2009:

    “In 2005, Citibank and ACORN Housing Corporation — which received tens of millions of tax dollars under the Bush administration alone — began recruiting Mexican illegal aliens for a lucrative program offering loans with below-market interest rates, down-payment assistance and no mortgage insurance requirements. Instead of the Social Security numbers required of law-abiding citizens, the program allows illegal alien applicants to supply loosely monitored tax identification numbers issued by the IRS.

    “The San Diego Union-Tribune reported that ‘undocumented residents’ comprise a vast market representing a potential sum of ‘$44 billion in mortgages.’ Citibank enlarged its portfolio of subprime and other risky loans. ACORN enlarged its membership rolls. The program now operates in Miami; New York City; Jersey City, N.J.; Baltimore; Washington, D.C.; Chicago; Bridgeport, Conn.; and at all of ACORN Housing's 12 California offices.

    “San Diego ACORN officials advised illegal alien recruits that their bank partners would take applicants who had little or no credit, or even ‘nontraditional records of credit, such as utility payments and documentation of private loan payments.’

    “The risk the banks bear is the price they pay to keep ACORN protesters and Hispanic lobbyists from the National Council of La Raza screaming about ‘predatory lending’ off their backs. These professional grievance-mongers have turned the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act — which forced lenders to sacrifice underwriting standards for ‘diversity’ — into lucrative ‘business’ opportunities. Or rather, politically correct blackmail.

    “As the Consumer Rights League noted in a 2008 report on the group's successful shakedowns of financial institutions, ‘an agreement with Citibank, a significant ACORN donor and partner, showed that some activists become less active when deals are in place.’”

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

141 posted 2009-10-03 03:37 PM

Thanks for the link Mike, I'll certainly look at the allegations though from what I've read so far the article seems to exaggerate the involvement of ACORN in the sub-prime fiasco.

That isn't to say ACORN didn't play a part - I wouldn't be confident at this point to say that one way or the other.

I do have a comment regarding the tactics used by ACORN with regard to disrupting the meetings and discussions at the time - in my opinion their actions were deplorable - regardless of whether their reason to do so was correct it doesn't excuse such uncivil demonstrations.

.

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

142 posted 2009-10-03 03:48 PM

Great links, Michael. Thanks.

The Missouri cases resulted in convictions, Grinch.

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

143 posted 2009-10-03 03:53 PM

Were ACORN convicted Denise?

.

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

144 posted 2009-10-03 06:16 PM

Mike,

I'm still merrily churning through the history of ACORN, the legislation surrounding the CRA and the facts and figures surrounding the sub prime crisis.

I was interested to discover that pre-2002 banks didn't supply sub-prime mortgages - they couldn't until banking rules were relaxed. Another interesting fact is that only one in five sub-prime mortgages were supplied through the CRA compliant banks - those associated with ACORN.

I'm still trying to verify this article completely but so far it seems to be accurate:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2008229403_opin05froma.html

.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

145 posted 2009-10-03 07:43 PM

You are trying to verify an opinion article? Ok...

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

146 posted 2009-10-03 08:49 PM

quote:
You are trying to verify an opinion article? Ok...

Yes.

All opinions or claims that purport to contain facts can be verified.

For example, take this from your first opinion piece:

quote:
IN April 1992, Talbott filed an other precedent-setting com plaint using the "community support requirements" of the 1989 savings-and-loan bailout, this time against Avondale Federal Bank for Savings. Within a month, Chicago ACORN had organized its first "bank fair" at Malcolm X College and found 16 Chicago-area financial institutions willing to participate.

The claim that a complaint was filed against Avondale Federal Bank is verifiable.
The fact that ACORN held a bank fair is verifiable and the number of banks involved is verifiable.

All those facts turn out to be correct. This part of the opinion is factual correct however it isn't what you might call factual complete.

It would have been worth mentioning that the original complaint made was that Avondale claimed CRA status but still enforced the redlining principal - either turning down otherwise eligible applicants based on the area they lived in or by loading the repayment terms and deposit required. That fact is useful to get a clearer picture of what actually happened and to form your own opinion.

.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

147 posted 2009-10-04 02:48 PM

     The Wikipedia article on the CRA provides a good history and an excellent bibliography for followup on the material you're talking about, for whomever is interested.  It seems reasonably evenhanded in terms of political viewpoint and gives good historical review.

     From a Liberal point of view, the practice of redlining was odious because it had bands accepting deposits from within redlined zones, thus taking money out of the community, and refusing to make loans inside the zones, refusing to reinvest in the zones.  The result was to create some pretty awful slums.

     The CRA was designed to force banks to make loans to qualified buyers within these redlined zones.  Many banks lobbied against it.  Why they did so, I can't tell you.  My speculation is that they felt that the areas were so depressed that they couldn't imagine anybody wanting to invest in them, and that any investment there was simply money thrown away.  I think that the more radical explanation of racism is probably either wrong or played a very small part in the matter.  The color that interested the bankers most was green.  I could be swayed by research, but that's what I think at this point.

     Of course ACORN demonstrated and applied political pressure.  They present themselves as community organizers.  That is what it says on the proverbial Sign over the Front Door.  When you walk around to the proverbial Loading Dock in the Shipping Department out back, why would you be shocked to see community organizing being loaded on the trucks for distribution around the community?  Is it a shock that community organizers organize communities around community issues?  Access to credit is one of those.  Investment in the community by community businesses is another.  No taxation without representation is another still.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

148 posted 2009-10-04 03:49 PM

     Regarding ACORN  in more depth, I've located two pieces.  The first piece is short and to the point, and from The Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/23/AR2009092303679.html

     This second piece is much more detailed.  The executive summary is good, the whole paper runs to about sixty pages and it talks about the how of the distortion of ACORN in the media.  One of the points it speaks about is the fact that most of the mistakes found in the voter registration by employees of ACORN are found and flagged by ACORN itself, who separates these registrations out in presenting them to the registrar BUT HAS NO CHOICE in whether on not to present them at all.  Every registration that is completed must be submitted to the registrar, no matter how outlandish by law.

     This is why ACORN employees are sometimes guilty of submitting false registrations, though rarely, but the organization is not.

     The Right wing doesn't distinguish, for reasons of its own.  I like to think it can tell the difference between what ACORN has to do by law and what it wishes to do by guile, especially since the dubious applications have been flagged and noted, but perhaps they can't.

http://departments.oxy.edu/uepi/acornstudy/acornstudy.pdf

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

149 posted 2009-10-21 03:23 PM

Uh-oh. Breaking News, this time in Philly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af9DDayHwbg&feature=player_embedded

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

150 posted 2009-10-22 03:30 PM

     I watched the video.  There were problems with it.

     In the excerpts shown, the comments by the actress were mostly delivered off camera.  We have no way to establish that they were in fact said on film or not.  The replies that were explained the the narrator were not heard in the voice of the woman who was supposed to have been speaking them, though she was heard clearly in the Media Matters response video.  If the narrator has these clips, why didn't he allow us to hear them in her voice?  In a number of incidences, though the narrator says he ran out of tape at 26 minutes, he stops the tape at 10 minutes to explain what the ACORN spokeswoman is supposed to be saying.  If in fact she actually did say what he reports, why not let us actually let us hear what she did say?

     When he runs audio without time stamps, or stops video and allows video to keep playing,  he offers the undocumented illusion that the words being heard were recorded at the same time as the stopped video was recorded.  Yet he has, without notification, removed the evidence that this is the case.  While this is suggestive of duplicity, he does not address this at any point in his presentation.  The omission is glaring.

     You could march an army through the problems with this video, Denise, simply on the basis of internal consistency.  If the guy thought that leather blouse was bizarre, I suspect he's never been into a fashion forward boutique before.  If he thought that giving somebody a business card was compelling evidence, I suspect he's never been in business.  How often have you ever refused to offer somebody a business card at your place of business?  If nothing else, you would expect your boss would be upset with you for acting in an unprofessional fashion.  Goodness!

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

151 posted 2009-10-22 03:33 PM

Dear Denise,

Have you had a chance to check out the Washington Post Article in my post previous to yours, above?

Sincerely, Bob Kaven

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

152 posted 2009-10-22 07:08 PM

The audio was muted when the Acorn employee was speaking because Philly has a law similar to Maryland that requires consent, so they could only air the video, but not the audio. They are awaiting Acorn's consent to air the complete video with audio. But it doesn't really matter if they get it or not. The point of releasing the video, I think, was to show that the head of Acorn, and the employee and others lied in their interview with Media Matters when they stated that the subject of prostitution never came up, that they were thrown out of the office immediately, that they were disruptive while there so the police had to be called, etc.

But if Acorn contends the tape is deceptive all they have to do is approve the full release of it to prove it deceptive. I'm not holding my breath.

Yeah, I'd say her outfit was bizarre. She looked exactly like what she was pretending to be...a hooker. When you see someone dressed like that you know they are probably a prostitute. Regular folks don't dress like that, Bob.

Yes, I did read the article in the link you provided. I don't agree with Acorn's tactics and objectives.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

153 posted 2009-10-23 02:53 AM

     So, basically, it doesn't matter that the actress is shown with some sort of video running, but not her mouth running either, and with the freeze frame going.  You automatically assume there is no deception going on.    You seem remarkably trusting about  some things here, Denise.  The fact that recording without advance permission is illegal anyway isn't bothersome to you either.  Gosh.  And now you think signing away your constitutional protections is something you should do to give criminals a break when they're trying to blackmail  you.  So that you can sign away your rights to press charges against them from this sort of criminal invasion.

     Wow, thinking like that makes sense if you want to encourage this sort of criminal behavior, and if you want to give up your right to press charges in the long run, I suppose.  And if you want to give in to the sort of greasy criminal behavior that this seem to appear to be.  Myself, I'd rather see if I could get these jerks taken to court and sued within an inch of their lives for damages; and then, if possible jailed for whatever misdemeanor or felony the law in Maryland provides.

     If these people believe that ACORN broke the law or has acted badly, then they should go about proving it in a legal way.  Though it appears they believe they are above the law.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

154 posted 2009-10-23 03:09 AM

Dear Denise,

Good to know that you don't agree with the goals of ACORN. What I'd had in mind in offering the article were parts of it like this, which addressed a study by folks at the University of Northern Iowa —

quote:

Looking at the 647 stories on the group that ran in leading newspapers and broadcast networks in 2007 and 2008, they found that not only did a majority of such stories focus on allegations of voter fraud but also that 83 percent of the stories that linked ACORN to those allegations failed to mention that actual instances of voter fraud were all but nonexistent.

This is, of course, the exact opposite of the impression given by right wing news sources, such as some that you have quoted in these pages from time to time.

This was one example of the material I had hoped you might have noticed. Having pointed it out explicitly, I am curious what your reaction to it actually is. I do not wish for you, however, to feel obligated to answer, and a change in topic would be understood as a graceful method of declining. I would not take it amiss.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

155 posted 2009-10-23 03:42 PM

I don't know if it is considered criminal behavior as long as they don't release the audio prior to consent. I'm not familiar with the intricacies of the statute. Video is okay though.

I can't speak for the news organizations and broadcasting outfits, Bob. But I hardly think that claiming voter registration fraud is virtually nonexistent with regard to ACORN is accurate.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

156 posted 2009-10-23 03:56 PM

Why not check? In fact, the numbers are virtually non-existent vis-a-vis ACORN, Denise, they are virtually non-existant period.

The panic the excitement and the hoopla about them are very large. The reality about them is very small indeed.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

157 posted 2009-10-23 04:45 PM

Exremely small....especially when one's mind and eyes are closed.....but, then again, logic is overrated, anyway.

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

158 posted 2009-10-23 05:01 PM

quote:
But I hardly think that claiming voter registration fraud is virtually nonexistent with regard to ACORN is accurate.

I couldn't find a single case which resulted in ACORN being found guilty of registration fraud. Have you got some examples Denise? Mike?

.

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

159 posted 2009-10-24 05:21 PM

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-complete-guide-to-acorn-voter-fraud/

I shared this link earlier. It has lots of information of various investigations, charges, convictions, etc.

How many more would it take to not be considered virtually nonexistent?

I wonder how many ACORN 'employees' have to be convicted before people realize that there may just possibly be a problem with ACORN the organization?

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

160 posted 2009-10-24 05:37 PM

Barack Obama was a key player in this organization, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, in the past. Obama trained its local leaders, represented the organization in court, and worked to funnel funds to the organization. The Obama campaign also donated $800,000 this year to an ACORN affiliate.

No chance, Denise. Criticism against ACORN is viewed as criticism against Obama in liberal eyes. You will get no acknowledgement from any lefties.

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

161 posted 2009-10-24 05:52 PM

quote:
I shared this link earlier. It has lots of information of various investigations, charges, convictrons, etc.

And yet Denise not one instance of ACORN being convicted of voter registration fraud.

quote:
How many more would it take to not be considered virtually nonexistent?

Well one would be a start. Two convictions of ACORN would suggest that the first wasn't an isolated incident and three or more would be persuasive evidence that ACORN was complicit in organised registration fraud.

So far though I see none.

Mike,

Denise won't get any acknowledgement that ACORN has been convicted of voter registration fraud from this Conservative either. That's got more to do with the fact that it just plain isn't true than what my political view is.

I don't think I'm unique in that regard.

.

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

162 posted 2009-10-24 06:07 PM

Criticism is verboten, unless it's of Bush, Cheney, Rove, Limbaugh, Beck, Fox, the Teaparty Patriots, the Republicans, the CIA, the free market system, those who participated in the 9/12 March on DC, those opposed to the Democrats version of health reform, etc., etc., etc.

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

163 posted 2009-10-24 06:10 PM

You seem to conveniently ignore all the 'employees' of ACORN who have been indicted and convicted, Grinch. Why is that?

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

164 posted 2009-10-24 07:23 PM

Why?

Because most of the employees were turned in by ACORN.

Is the US postal service automatically guilty of murder if one of its employees throws a wobbly and guns down 6 people in a crowded plaza? Heck no. So what kind of weird logic makes you believe that ACORN is automatically guilty of attempted voter registration fraud based on the fact that some employees were convicted of defrauding ACORN and attempting to register voters illegally?

What I find odd is the whole process of these allegations.

First you say ACORN is guilty of voter fraud. Until it's pointed out that they had no means to fraudulently affect the voting process. Then you reduce the charge to registration fraud, until it's pointed out that they haven't actually fraudulently registered anyone, so now you're looking for a guilt by association plea. What's next, stealing lollipops from babies?

So far you have no evidence, just a bag full of empty accusations. You're free to keep wheeling them out though - I'm more than happy to shoot them all down one by one.

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

165 posted 2009-10-24 07:28 PM

Some States call it voter fraud, some call it voter registration fraud. I'll settle for fraud.

ACORN has a distinct knack for hiring workers bent on committing fraud. I wonder why that would be?

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

166 posted 2009-10-24 07:41 PM

quote:
ACORN has a distinct knack for hiring workers bent on committing fraud. I wonder why that would be?

Err.. could it be the same reason why pen manufacturers have a distinct knack of employing pen thieves?

I don't know how to break this to you Denise but some folk are dishonest. Not only that they're opportunistic too. I'm pretty sure that if any of those dishonest ACORN workers happened to work at a pen factory their pockets would be stuffed full of writing implements come clocking off time.

.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

167 posted 2009-10-24 08:56 PM

     ACORN, as are all organizations that register voters, whether it is for Democrats, Republicans, Greens or simply out of the goodness of their hearts, bless them, are required to turn over every form that their employees have filled out.  This is my understanding of the registration law as it stands.

     This provision of the law seems designed to keep, say, ACORN, from registering a wide number of people and then discarding all the voters who wish to be registered as members of The Green Party.  Under the impression they were registered, these folks might then show up at the polls and find they were not on the rolls.  Making sure that every form is turned in to the registrar means that this doesn't happen.

     These forms are all reviewed by the company responsible for running the local  voter registration effort. Some of the forms as they come in to ACORN or other headquarters, depending on the company running the effort, are obviously bogus, and are caught on a first inspection.  These forms are set aside and bundled.  They are turned in to the registrar by ACORN or whatever other company is doing the work because they must be, by law, and they are checked by the registrar because they must be, by law, to make sure that there really is no Dudley Doright at 1000 Bullwinckle Way in Frostbite Falls, MN.  While it seems pretty much impossible on the face of it, you never really do know, and if there is a real Mr. Doright, his civil rights must be protected.  Usually, though, Mr. Doright's presence in the "questionable" pile is justified.  ACORN or whatever other organization  usually catches most of these dubious registrations.  The registrars themselves will catch others.  As a further check, both parties will frequently station observers at the polls to make sure that any apparent instances of fraud are challenged.

     The "frauds" that the Republicans seem to be talking about, seems to be those registrations already bundled and presented as questionable by ACORN itself.  A look at the longer paper I quoted above will speak about that.  What we have here is a distortion of the facts.  I suspect that neither Mike nor Denise is aware of this, because the party is certainly not making a point of letting it be known.  The distortion, amounting to a lie by omission is simply fine by them; or else they might simply correct the untruth and stop spreading it.

     I haven't seen this thus far, and I don't assume it likely in the near future.

     The 30,000 felons that the Republicans are allowed to vote illegally in Florida are another story entirely.  That gets out of the realm of voter fraud, where people are trying to be registered to vote who aren't allowed to, and gets into the realm of election fraud, where people are being stricken from the rolls who have a legal right to vote for the benefit — in this case — of the Republican Party.

     Rather than me going off on the subject right here and now, I think I'd rather let people do their own research and thinking and, should they wish to discuss the issue further, bring the information back for discussion.  It seems simply a red herring at this point, though an interesting one.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

168 posted 2009-10-24 10:30 PM

The 30,000 felons that the Republicans are allowed to vote illegally in Florida are another story entirely.

I'm having a problem with the construction of that sentence, Bob. AS it stands, I can't make sense of it..

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

169 posted 2009-10-24 11:42 PM

     And so you should, Mike.  I should have proofread the thing and rewritten it.

     The Article that Denise posted made reference to a section on Florida.  It suggested that there had been a massive voter fraud allowing 30,000 felons to vote in Florida that were not legally allowed to vote there.  I suggested that this may not in fact be the case, but was likely to make reference to a case of  Election Fraud, where a massive number of Florida voters whose names where similar to names of convicted felons and whose voter registration was astonishingly almost entirely Democratic had been eliminated from the voter rolls. . . .   This was done by a company that was using data mining techniques that were, as I recall, somewhat dubious in nature.

     Greg Palast did considerable reporting on these stories, both in Print on and the BBC.

     There is lots of in depth reporting with references available, should you wish to check under Greg Palast, last I saw.  As I recall, we've discussed this before.

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

170 posted 2009-10-25 07:10 AM

Allegations of voter fraud/voter registration fraud should be investigated thoroughly regardless of which side of the aisle it comes from.

Perhaps uniform regulations should be adopted that must be adhered to from State to State and Precinct to Precint, such as photo ID of some sort that shows you are an acutal citizen, and maybe some sort of verification issued to felons upon release that they have regained the right to vote if their State allows, that must accompany their voter registration card at the time of voting.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

171 posted 2009-10-25 08:36 AM

Allegations of voter fraud/voter registration fraud should be investigated thoroughly regardless of which side of the aisle it comes from.

I agree. There have been many such instances. Gore, for example, did everything he could to get the absentee votes of servicemen overseas disregarded on a technicality because they knew they would be overwhelmingly pro-Bush.

Neither political party can claim holiness when it comes to election tactics.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

172 posted 2009-10-26 01:13 AM

     I've heard about that servicemen disqualification story before, but I've never actually seen any sources on it; do you have any, Mike?  It may be totally accurate, it may not be, but I don't hear even you suggest that it was illegal.  "A technicality" has also been known to cover a lot of range from, "Why even bother to bring this idiotic objection up?" to "What do you mean simply because a man died that he can't vote anymore?" and lots of gradations in between.

     Sometimes people don't bother to draw a distinction, as people have claimed for years was the case in Chicago in 1960, when it was proported that the dead in their tens of thousands rose from the grave, so moved were they by the righteousness of the Democratic cause.  To this day, there remains a quarrel about that.  I confess a deep split in that matter, for while I do sincerely wish to protest the honesty of The Democratic Party, there is something soul satisfying about the resurrection of the dead to ensure the election of John FitzGerald Kennedy to the office of The President of  The United States of America.

     There is a purity in the poetry of that.

	⇧ top of page ⇧
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.