How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Random Thoughts on Limbaugh and Glenn Be   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ]
 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

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

Random Thoughts on Limbaugh and Glenn Beck

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


150 posted 10-23-2009 11:12 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Rachel Maddow On "Daily Show": "Insulted," "Embarrassed" By Bush, MSNBC Compared To Munsters


Huffington Post   |  Danny Shea   |   January 8, 2009 07:53 AM

Rachel Maddow appeared on "The Daily Show" Wednesday night, where she and Jon Stewart discussed the MSNBC family, President-Elect Obama's policy knowledge, and George Bush's Blair House snub of the incoming First Family.

Stewart opened the interview by telling Maddow hers is "a lovely voice to have out there on the air," and then he compared MSNBC anchors to the Munster family.

"Ever see The Munsters?" he asked. "Here's what I think when I watch MSNBC: you're Marilyn," referring to the only normal member of a family of monsters. "But everyone else over there is **** nuts. I'm not gonna tell you who Herman Munster is, but I will tell you I believe Chris Matthews is the dragon who lives under the stairs."

"You know, I'm new there!" Maddow shot back.

Maddow explained that she doesn't watch cable news because she doesn't have a TV "I watch you on the online machine," she said to Stewart but that she tries to stand out as a different voice from the "homogenized" landscape of cable news.

The two then discussed Maddow's debates with Pat Buchanan (Grandpa Munster in Stewart's analogy) and her interviews with Barack Obama, who she described as "a policy dork."


Still looking for that lack of nastiness, Bob...
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


151 posted 10-23-2009 11:19 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Bob, you can go here to get links to the following stories.....http://storyballoon.org/videos/maddow-insults-tim-phillips-responds/


# Rachel Maddow Goes After WorldNetDaily For Post About An Obama Impeachment.
# Rachel Maddow Goes After Senator Ensign For Extra-Marital Affair.
# Rachel Maddow Goes After Blackwater Trying To Distract From The Large Scale Fraud Of ACORN.
#Rachel Maddow & Alan Grayson Bash Republicans..Again. 10/19/09. Grayson On The RNC I can only imagine how much 30 pieces of silver their going to throw this time at the race.
# Right On Cue Maddow Attacks Reagan's School Speech & Parent's Concerns About Obama
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


152 posted 10-23-2009 11:20 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     If the writing you quote from National Review is Mr. Krauthammer's and you find Mr. Krauthammer impressive, it must be for some other piece of work.  You write better than this, easily.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


153 posted 10-23-2009 11:23 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

The problem is that the Democrats really don't understand how to be appropriately cutting and nasty in return, and are somewhat big fat stupid dumb targets for the Fox network because they keep trying to behave in some sort of gentlemanly fashion.

These are examples of their "gentlemenly fashion, Bob. No, they can be nasty and cutting. The problem is they can't do it with any class and they turn people off with their tirades...thus their ratings.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


154 posted 10-24-2009 02:57 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Mike,

          Ms. Rhodes does have a bit of a potty mouth from time to time.  On the other hand, she posts references to document the political points she makes.  Can't say I was fond of what she said about Hillary or about everything that comes out of anybody's mouth.  That would, I suppose, include my own at times, when I think about it.  Mike Malloy tossed in some really nasty stuff about T. Boone Pickens this evening that I disagreed with.  I happen to like a lot about Old T. Boone Pickens, including his philanthropy, and I thought that Mike Malloy was out of line in saying a number of things that he did.  Going into detail is sort of off the point here, but it's true enough.  I disagree with a lot of things that people say, but generally have very little trouble with Ms. Maddow and Mr. Obermann and Thom Hartmann and even Randi Rhodes, when she isn't being potty mouthed.  I would happily tell you if I agreed or disagreed with any particular thing that they said, should you want to trot it by me.  I have no particular wish to defend stupid things said by people that I usually admire.  Sometimes, of course, the things that are quoted to me are taken somewhat out of context, and then I will defend them because I will generally agree with a message that has gotten distorted in transmission.

     Ms. Rhodes, I think, made a dumb call on the comments about Hillary Clinton.  I would suggest to you that I have heard comments about her not very different coming from right wing sources.  Some comments have suggested that she conspired to murder Vince Foster, for example, or that she was involved in criminal wrong-doing in the Whitewater non-affair.  While they were not as pungent as Ms. Rhodes comments, I would suspect that they were considerably more vile and just as baseless.  Perhaps you would like to suggest otherwise?

     I found Ms. Rhodes' comments more difficult in part because they came from a Democrat.

     I didn't find any particular problem with the other left wing talk show hosts.  For the most part, I believe they had their facts down pretty well and they still generally fell considerably short of the standards of abuse set by the right wing folks, at least to my ear.  Perhaps not to yours, but then to borrow a gentler form of a phrase you seem to have taken a recent liking to you might have a bit of bias there.  

Yours, Bob Kaven

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


155 posted 10-24-2009 04:28 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


Dear Mike,

         Thank you for the list of videos that you presented for my consideration.  I haven't gotten through them all yet, but I have gotten through several:

http://storyballoon.org/videos/maddow-insults-tim-phillips-responds/

     This video presents as two separate reels.  One is a version specifically edited to show Ms. Maddow and Mr. Phillips butting heads.  The other proports to be the complete video but in fact is not.  There are evident pieces edited out where Ms. Maddow begins to tell Mr. Phillips that she has in fact tackled some of the issues internal to the Democratic party that he has just told he that she hasn't.  The film at that point stops and continues where Ms. Maddow is thanking Mr. Phillips for his appearance.

     The only insults that I can see are where Ms Maddow tells Mr. Phillips that his presentation of his organization as a grass roots organization is somewhat confused by the fact that it is staffed by political professionals from the RNC, and that the speaker they feature, the former governor of Virginia, who now works as a professional lobbyist, refuses to state whether he has any health care organizations on his client list.  She also confronts Mr. Phillips about his refusal to say where his funding comes from presumably a grassroots organization would have grassroots funding, while a party front organization would have funding coming from sources within the party and from large party donors.

     Should you wish to respond to the sort of insult this sort of thing involves, I'd be interested in hearing.  To me it sounded like unwavering questioning and skillful examination.  The "unedited" version was one I found particularly interesting.

     I also saw the video you described as,

"# Rachel Maddow Goes After WorldNetDaily For Post About An Obama Impeachment."

     This seemed to me to be an interesting set of speculations about 1) WorldNetDaily and how the RNC was apparently taking a lively interest in this organization.  I don't think this was the reason for your upset, however, though I might sympathize if it were.  Ms. Maddow has a discussion with a Princeton Professor about the nature of the battle for control for the political narrative in this country.  To me, this sort of discussion is lively, important and interesting.  It ties in with some of the current developments in Psychotherapy, psychology, family therapy, social work, sociology and political science having to do with narrative frames.  Some of the work goes back to what was called at the time, The Palo Alto Group.  One of the members wrote a pretty accessible book that covers some of the basic theory in an interesting way.  The author is Jay Haley, the book is The Power Tactics of Jesus Christ.  

     I also watched,

"# Rachel Maddow Goes After Blackwater Trying To Distract From The Large Scale Fraud Of ACORN."

     Actually, Ms. Maddow characterizes ACORN as a fairly flawed organization.  She points out how the law that the two houses of congress passed creates a good deal of trouble, and why.  She is in fact correct about the material she brings up.  It does not distract from ACORN and whatever problems that it may or may not have, especially, I think, with finances.  It does point out how this particular attempt to bring ACORN to heel will have unintended consequences that may not be so popular a little bit down the line.

     You will be aware of that; having of course seen these videos already, you will be aware that they show Ms. Maddow as a thoughtful and well centered woman who acknowledges the flaws in her allies and the virtues in the opponents.  What puzzles me is why you might have thought these videos would have shown shortcomings in Ms. Maddow to anybody who actually watched them from beginning to end with an open mind.  They certainly confirmed my personal admiration for the woman.

     I hope to have a chance to see the other videos over the next day or two.  Thank you for bringing them to my attention.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven

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


156 posted 10-24-2009 08:17 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Ms. Rhodes does have a bit of a potty mouth from time to time.

That's very benevolent of you, Bob. I wonder if your comment would be as condescending if that incredible bit of garbage were spoken by a conservative talk show host. Picture for a moment the backlash from the left in that scenario.

On the other hand, she posts references to document the political points she makes.

I see. It's fine then to call someone what she calls them if you can document them. I'd be interested in seeing her documentation on those descriptions. As much as I disliked Hillary, even I wouldn't go that far.While they were not as pungent as Ms. Rhodes comments, I would suspect that they were considerably more vile Really, Bob!? More vile than calling someone a (sexual act)(promiscuous person) on the air? Bob, you have blown your creditibility as being anywhere near unbiased here, I'm afraid. She even got blasted by her own party and was kicked off Air America and they didn't say she had "a bit of a potty mouth". The fact that she is on the air anywhere shows the lack of class both she and the Democrats have.

I believe they had their facts down pretty well and they still generally fell considerably short of the standards of abuse set by the right wing folks, at least to my ear. No problem, Bob. In my opinion, your belief and your ear could both use a medical checkup but it's become fairly standard that you operate with a complete double standard where things like this are presented.


What puzzles me is why you might have thought these videos would have shown shortcomings in Ms. Maddow to anybody who actually watched them from beginning to end with an open mind.  They certainly confirmed my personal admiration for the woman.

Actually, I did not present these videos to show her shortcomings, Bob. They need to learn and practice the sort of cut and parry that's been the mainstay of the English House of Commons for centuries, enjoy it, develop a sincerely vicious pro-Liberal Press that is fully as rude as Fox but on the other side of the fence, and then simply get on with the business of governance. I presented them to refute your claim that left-wing talk show hosts are too polite, not rude enough and deficient in their cut-and-parry techniques to be able to compete with FOX. They are certanily rude enough, not polite enough, and do their best to cut and parry with the best of them. The problem is they don't have the talent for it. They come across to the public as ranters and ravers instead of people one wants to pay attention to. They don't try to build up the country....they try to knock it down. They don't show any positivity...they try to be as negative as possible.

Personally I don't mind. As long as they continue the way they are, Fox will continue to dwarf them in the ratings and they are too dumb to figure that out. Say waht you want about Limbaugh and Hannity and O'Reilly  but they are gentlemen. They look like gentlemen, they present themselves like gentlemen and their messages come across in a way that people respect. What kind of rebuttal would a Democrat like yourself have to that?... the addict Limbaugh As, I said, Bob, there is quite the lack of class among Democrats.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


157 posted 10-24-2009 09:44 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

Rachel Maddow etc. versus Glenn Beck etc.?

At first glance, and both of them are fairly new to me, they're the same - two politically biased presenters giving their own opinion. There is a difference though if you scratch the surface, Beck presents his opinion based on purported facts that, generally, turn out to be either completely false or badly presented. Maddow has the same political bias and is also presenting her opinion but when you check the facts behind the opinion they, on balance, turn out to be true.

Why is Beck more popular?

Beck supplies a ready-made opinion to people who can't be bothered to find reasons to support their own. A large segment of his audience want to believe the tripe he's spouting and can see no advantage in doing a bit of background checking to prove that his, and ultimately there own opinions, are flawed.

You can see the evidence of that every day in these forums. People post quotes from other people's opinions or links to sites that seem to support their own beliefs simply because they happen to parallel their own view. They don't check the validity of what they're quoting; they simply accept everything without question. What you end up with is an opinion by proxy, which is dangerous if the opinion you're deciding to adopt has more holes than a Swiss cheese. Mike found that out in this thread:

http://piptalk.com/pip/Forum6/HTML/001845.html

He posted somebody else's opinion then found himself on the back foot defending it when it turned out to be complete nonsense.

So why is Maddow less popular?

Her potential audience simply aren't in the market for an opinion by proxy - they're busy forming their own opinion by going to the source of the facts - I daresay a lot of her potential audience are actually too busy watching Beck before researching the facts to prove his opinion doesn't hold water and their own opinion is superior.

Fox and Obama?

The administration is making a mistake, Fox news and Fox opinion are sometimes hard to segregate but they are two different entities. He should ignore the opinion side and continue to give access to the Fox news reporters.

That's my opinion.

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


158 posted 10-24-2009 10:48 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Beck presents his opinion based on purported facts that, generally, turn out to be either completely false or badly presented.

How do you define generally, grinch? 7% of the time? 50%? 35%? Are you prepared to back up that statement with anything factual?

Beck supplies a ready-made opinion to people who can't be bothered to find reasons to support their own. A large segment of his audience want to believe the tripe he's spouting and can see no advantage in doing a bit of background checking to prove that his, and ultimately there own opinions, are flawed.

But of course. You have joined the ranks of LR and Bob (unsurprisingly) that the FOX audience is simply made up of ignorant, bug-eating, trailer trash types sitting on their couches, chanting "Go, Beck!" That's quite a sweeping statement for the tens of millions of people who watch FOX. You believe in facts over opinions, grinch.  Do you have any facts to support your portrait of these ignoramuses...or are you just tossing out an opinion?

they're busy forming their own opinion by going to the source of the facts

So there we have  it. Maddox listeners are deep-thinking intellectuals while Beck's are lazy nogoodniks who believe in little more than having a beer. I daresay you have never shown your bias so completely here, Mr. grinch. You've listed nothing factual and responded with little more than your own personal opinion, which happens to support Maddoz and damn Beck. Thanks for such an informative response....
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


159 posted 10-24-2009 11:24 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
How do you define generally, grinch?


I'd say the facts are either completely wrong or badly presented 100% of the time Mike. Granted I haven't watched everything he's presented but I think I've watched enough to form an opinion.

Maddow by comparison does much better in my opinion, researching what she presents as facts returns fairly consistent results matching what she says, which suggests that on the whole they're correctly presented.

quote:
You have joined the ranks of LR and Bob (unsurprisingly) that the FOX audience is simply made up of ignorant, bug-eating, trailer trash types sitting on their couches, chanting "Go, Beck!"


I wouldn't call them ignorant Mike and I didn't, you, Bob and LR can call them what you like, I think they're simply happy and content to receive affirmation that what they believe is correct. Beck gives them that and they've no inclination to look any further. They aren't alone in that respect, Maddow does have a regular audience, the chances are a fair amount of them are looking for an opinion by proxy. Maddow's potential audience however is smaller.

quote:
or are you just tossing out an opinion?


Am I tossing out an opinion?

Hell yes. The big clue to that is the fact that I said as much at the foot of my post. It's my opinion based on the facts as I see them

quote:
I daresay you have never shown your bias so completely here


Biased?

Guilty as charged.

I looked at Becks output and at Maddow's output, I checked the purported facts of each and researched whether they were correct or badly presented. I found that Maddow won hands down when it came to presenting facts. Based on that I'm heavily biased when I form the opinion that Beck is an idiot and the only reason to watch him is to laugh at his inane claims and crocodile tears.

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


160 posted 10-24-2009 11:32 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

OK, so be it. Fox watchers are uneducated, lazy, uninterested in facts miscreants and liberal talk show watchers are polite, educated, informed, decent folks. Fox gets the ratings and msnbc doesn't. Life just ain't fair sometimes, is it?

Have a good day, grinch.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


161 posted 10-24-2009 11:38 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

p.s.


By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Let's face it. Fox News runs stories that the Obama administration would rather ignore - from the sleaziness and corruption in the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) to the bizarre views and actions of senior presidential appointees such as Van Jones and Kevin Jennings.

Although the Obama team doesn't trust Fox News, a surprisingly large number of Democrats do. A new Pew Research Center for the People & the Press poll released on Sept. 13 shows that Fox News is more trusted - even by Democrats - than the New York Times. While 43 percent of Democrats have a positive view of Fox News, 39 percent feel the same way about the Times. Among Republicans and independents, Fox News does have huge 56 and 26 percentage point leads.

As the survey indicates, Fox's audience is not just composed of conservatives but includes plenty of liberals and moderates, too. This probably is because viewers appreciate hard-hitting news that is different from the administration line regurgitated everywhere else on TV. Its independence helps explain why Fox News regularly has more viewers than CNN, MSNBC and CNN Headline News combined.

Data illustrates that Fox is more evenhanded than its competitors. A Pew analysis showed that 40 percent of Fox News stories on Mr. Obama as well as 40 percent of those on Sen. John McCain were negative during the last six weeks of the 2008 presidential campaign. By contrast, CNN had a 22 percentage point gap and MSNBC a 59 percentage point spread in favor of Mr. Obama. The White House is so protected by soft-focus coverage that anything not tilted its way is considered an act of war.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/15/fox-hunting/
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


162 posted 10-24-2009 12:43 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
Fox watchers are uneducated, lazy, uninterested in facts miscreants and liberal talk show watchers are polite, educated, informed, decent folks.


I don't agree with your opinion here Mike. As I clearly said in my last post.

If I were to hazard a guess I'd say that the education levels of both sets of watchers was, on average, about equal.

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


163 posted 10-24-2009 06:20 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Mike,

        
quote:


OK, so be it. Fox watchers are uneducated, lazy, uninterested in facts miscreants and liberal talk show watchers are polite, educated, informed, decent folks.




     Oh stop!  Now you're simply fishing for compliments!

Yours cheerfully,

Bob Kaven


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


164 posted 10-24-2009 06:34 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Just giving Grinch's and your descriptions, Bob. Grinch has clarified that they are not unintelligent so I guess the lazy and uninterested in facts must still stand...no problem.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


165 posted 10-24-2009 07:32 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
Grinch has clarified that they are not unintelligent so I guess the lazy and uninterested in facts must still stand...no problem.


I don't think your assertion that they're lazy or uninterested in facts stands up to scrutiny Mike. As I said I think they're simply happy and content believing what they want to believe. Beck just gives them the illusion that they were right all along.

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


166 posted 10-24-2009 09:11 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Mike,

          Compared to whom, Mike?

     The Grinch is a fact-digesting factory.  I wouldn't pretend to have his grasp on them.  I wouldn't think you would either.  It's simply a silly comparison.

     Loyalty  and actual fact and reality ought to have more of a relation to each other.  I suspect that a lot of conservatives don't have as much trust of facts as liberals do.  Facts do better in some sorts of discussions, feelings in others.  The difficult part is trying to find some way of balancing the two in any one discussion.  To much in any single direction and you fall off the high wire.

     That's the way I figure it.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


167 posted 10-25-2009 06:40 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I guess a lot depends on the definition of 'facts'.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


168 posted 10-25-2009 07:20 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


I'd go with the universally accepted definition Denise:

A fact is a pragmatic truth that can be verified and confirmed.

Can you verify or confirm that ACORN has committed voter registration fraud Denise?

If not the definition of vilification may be more useful.

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


169 posted 10-25-2009 07:35 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Time will tell. Investigations are ongoing.

ACORN is set up in such a way as to make it difficult to pin them down on anything. Employees have been investigated, indicted and convicted. There is an investigation going on in Louisiana, I think, regarding the embezzlement by Dale Rathke, but even if they charge anyone in that fiasco and coverup, it can still be asserted that ACORN, the organization, isn't guilty of anthing, just a few bad apples at the top, similar to the few bad apples at the bottom reasoning for the lower level miscreants. I forget which State it is but another trial is ongoing in fraud charges against a local ACORN head, which no doubt will be chalked up to a bad apple in the middle. I think ACORN, the organization, has itself pretty well insulated.

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


170 posted 10-25-2009 08:31 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

...in the same way they had to get Capone on tax evasion. I would imagine that Grinch in the 1930's would ridicule the charges that Big Al was a murderer, extorter or crime boss  since he was never convicted of being one.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


171 posted 10-25-2009 08:42 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
ACORN is set up in such a way as to make it difficult to pin them down on anything.


That isn't true Denise.

The reason ACORN can't be pinned down on charges of voter fraud or voter registration fraud, apart from the obvious, is that the registration system is set up in such a way that they couldn't do either even if they wanted to.

Bob,

You're pretty much spot on with regard to the rules surrounding voter registration as you described them in the other thread. All organisations are legally obliged to deliver all registration forms regardless of the perceived authenticity of the contents. The only person legally allowed to decline or destroy a registration form is the official registrar.

To help in the process some registrars insist that the forms are pre-sorted into three types before being presented - probably correct, probably correct but incomplete and dubious. However it's the registrars responsibility to verify all forms before granting the applicant the right to vote. It's also the registrar's responsibility to report high numbers of dubious forms presented from any single organisation, a safeguard to highlight a potential attempt to intentionally defraud the voter registration process.

Figures from registrars show that the number of dubious forms presented by ACORN averaged 7% of the total forms they submitted. The average for all such organisations - Republican and Democrat - is 5 to 7%. The question has to be asked, if every organisation is following the same system and achieving the same or similar results why is ACORN alone being singled out for special treatment?

.

[This message has been edited by Grinch (10-25-2009 11:49 AM).]

Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


172 posted 10-25-2009 08:54 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
I would imagine that Grinch in the 1930's would ridicule the charges that Big Al was a murderer, extorter or crime boss  since he was never convicted of being one.


You have a vivid imagination Mike.

Unfortunately the case of Capone and ACORN are fundamentally different. The biggest difference being that the system of voter registration in place means that ACORN couldn't commit voter fraud or voter registration using that process.

To make the two cases the same would require Capone to submit applications to Elliot Ness before every murder and attempt to extort and for Elliot Ness to sign them all off as legal and above board.

Maybe in your imagination Mike, but in the real world? I think not.

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


173 posted 10-25-2009 09:26 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

To make the two cases the same would require Capone to submit applications to Elliot Ness before every murder and attempt to extort

Not at all. Capone could simply apply for permits to set up "community organizer" houses to aid Italian refugees and the poor. If some of his organizers happened to use murder and extortion....hey, that's not Al's fault, is it?

Obviously he never told them to use those tactics because he was never convicted of it.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


174 posted 10-25-2009 09:44 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Presumably in your imagined scenario Capone was reporting them to the FBI too - just like ACORN.

Is there a dragon in this fairytale Mike?

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Random Thoughts on Limbaugh and Glenn Be   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

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



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