»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Oak trees grow
| The Alley |
|
Oak trees grow |
|
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
The bill may be unconstitutional! http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/judge-strikes-down-congressional-ban-funding-acorn Wow, I guess nobody saw that one coming.  |
||
| © Copyright 2010 Grinch - All Rights Reserved | |||
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
As I recall, you saw it coming, Grinch. "violated the Constitution by declaring an organization guilty of a crime and punishing it and its members without benefit of a trial" Wow, that's really going to set the teabaggers off when they hear about that! Signs, banners, and lots more pitchfork marches for sure! |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
And O’Keefe “the pimp” will plead guilty to charges filed against him and three others in the phone tampering case. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
And ACORN has apparently been destroyed by this, going out of business on 3/22/10, its reputation ruined. Some reorganization is going on, but the Republicans have been, basically, successful in their massive smear campaign against that organization. Flaws internal to the organization, perhaps in their financial management, may also have played a role. While only about 10% of their funding came from Federal sources, according to Wikipedia, the massive storm of criticism from the Right caused many organizations and individuals to rethink their donations to the organization. Personally, I feel this a great pity. The organization did a wonderful job in a great many areas, voter registration, and community organization foremost in my mind. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
They haven't been destroyed, Bob. They are reforming under new names. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: From little acorns.. How long after the bill is confirmed as unconstitutional will the lawsuit for damages be filed? . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
It's not over yet. http://dailycaller.com/2010/04/23/congressional-republicans-urge-orszag-to-enforce-new-ruling-defunding-acorn/ |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9F90QO03&show_article=1 |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
They’re only putting off the inevitable Denise. The Supreme court will refuse to get involved until the case plays out in the lower courts but ultimately they’ll have to make a decision and the longer it drags on the bigger the payout. Naming Acorn specifically in the legislation was a huge mistake, apart from being obviously unconstitutional, it also allows Acorn to sidestep the legislation by reforming under a different name. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Yeah, I believe they are in the process of forming new groups. We'll have to wait to see how it all turns out. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Presumably they're forming new groups because the lies that the Guy told who didn't dress up as a Pimp but got every Republican in Congress to believe he'd done so were so unconvincing that the congress was willing to shove through a Bill of Attainder and pretty much atomize the Acorn organization and ruin its creditability. This is the sort of thing that Lee Atwater used to call Dirty Tricks, isn't it? Nixon used to pull them off, and some Republican rascal used them against John McCain in — was it South Carolina? — a couple of Presidential election cycles ago. I think that was Karl Rove, now that I think about it. Wasn't it Karl Rove? So now Acorn is pretty busted up in a pretty clearly unconstitutional way — you'll remember that bit about bills of Attainder not being allowed was from the Constitution, right? — and where is the Republican outrage? I hear deafening silence. Now I've heard lots of accusations about imagined constitutional violations from the Radical Right, but none that could actually be documented or be more than somewhat shaky matters of opinion, but here we have a really and truly Bill of Attainder whipped up through hysteria generated from some Republican Dirty Tricks, and all I can hear is Denise saying, it didn't hurt the organization that badly. After all, it's reforming under different names. Reforming? That's the sort of thing that happens when a company goes through bankruptcy, isn't it? Thank goodness! It's not as bad as if the company went bankrupt or something. Oh, yeah — maybe it is. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
The Appeals Court apparently doesn't agree that it amounts to a Bill of Attainder. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Actually Denise that’s not strictly true, the appeal court allowed a temporary freeze on the original court decision until a full appeal can be heard later this year. The government argued that not blocking the decision would require federal agencies to commit funds that hadn’t been appropriated by congress which, supposedly, would cause irreparable harm. The appeal court made no findings on the legality or otherwise of the original decision regarding the bill of attainder. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Is this an organization, headed by this woman who praises socialism, and an organization that had questionable accounting issues with seperating its politcal arm from its community service arm, worthy of taxpayer funds? Isn't that like forcing those who don't support their political views to support them with their money? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH4PYYev1u0 |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
We might disagree there, if you base your decision on factors such as that. The American Nazi Party had a right to march through Skokie, which was at the time a fairly Jewish suburb, and Rockwell was not a nice man. So what? The man's rights weren't limited by the fact that he was somebody who professed political beliefs that the majority of the country was less than thrilled with at that time. I was unhappy with the ACLU's support of George Lincoln Rockwell, but on constitutional grounds they were right. It wasn't a popularity contest. I didn't have to like the Nazis or support them. I didn't have to be happy with the ACLU for them to be correct. Being familiar with Marxist thought is one of the things that an adult raised in the United States should be able to do, just as s/he should be able to be familiar with at least some Adam Smith and some Milton Friedman. All these folks have had some impressive ideas. Familiarity makes your thought flexible and gives it some depth, it doesn't make you a Marxist or a Commie or a Nazi. Even if you are one of these things, that doesn't mean that you aren't an American, with the same rights that any other American has [i] as long as you don't try to take over the government by force.{/i]. As long as you function within the political structures, the government shouldn't bother you and shouldn't take action against you on political grounds. Defunding ACORN, near as I remember, had nothing to do with their financial problems, which were real and — again, as I remember, generated internally. If they did anything actionable, they should have action taken against them by the proper authorities. But not on political grounds. Those are my thoughts, at least. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I don't believe that ACORN and groups like it should get any taxpayer funds because their community organizing and service is an outgrowth of and part and parcel of their political ideology. All such groups, in my opinion, should get their funds through private donations. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Denise, I think it would be useful to ask why ACORN and organizations like ACORN are such a threat to the Republican Party, and why they are so important to the Democratic party. Why is it that Republican efforts have not been along similar lines; that is, along the lines of signing up new voters, but have been along the lines of getting more ideologically extreme voters activated by appealing to more ideologically extreme issues? What grounds are they ceding to the Democrats and which grounds are they attempting to stake out for themselves here? What strategies do they need to follow to be successful in getting into power and remaining there? And what line does this mean that they need to follow with the Democrats? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I don't know that the Republicans see ACORN as a threat. If you think they do, why do you think they do,Bob? quote: I don't know what you mean by this. Can you give me an example? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Because I put up a thread about the subject a few months back, and watched the misrepresentations that my friends from the Radical Right brought to the table. There were a lot of them, and they were directed against ACORN. Part of that was because President Obama was involved with ACORN, and an attack on ACORN was in some ways an attack on President Obama via what’s called the halo effect. In other ways, it was because ACORN was bringing in additional voters, and the Republicans traditionally don’t like that because new voters are traditionally young voters, or ethnic voters or voters of color, and Republicans are not strong in any of these Demographics. This is why, the other day, for example, Rush Limbaugh accused President Obama of being a racist for not including older white males in the groups of people that the President felt the government should reach out to. The Republicans also voted what amounts to be a bill of attainder against ACORN, specifically targeting their funding, on the basis of a poorly done propaganda piece. Now that it has come out exactly how large a propaganda piece this has been, no apology is forthcoming, nor any attempt to make things whole has been attempted. Those things would seem to be a pretty good start. Should you wish more reasons, you might reread the thread. quote: but have been along the lines of getting more ideologically extreme voters activated by appealing to more ideologically extreme issues? I don't know what you mean by this. Can you give me an example? [/quote] I can try. I’ve been reading a book by Liza Pickard about Elizabethan London. One of the things that you could do to get Londoners seriously upset is by talking about those French protestants who’d come over and who were taking away good English Jobs. They passed laws against this sort of thing, saying that there was a limit on the number of foreigners that a Master could take on as apprentices, for example, even if the Master was foreign. Being upset at the notion of foreigners taking domestic jobs has been a hot button issue for hundreds of years, and not simply in the United States. In times of economic chaos, it is much more of an issue. People react violently, and sometimes they over-react. The Republicans have exploited this issue to get their base activated; and those people who are the most upset about those who are different are the folks who are the most upset. The Democrats tend to be interested in these same people as potential new voters. The Republicans want to keep them off the voter rolls as much as possible, and so go after ACORN and other voter registration groups. They also try to charge folks with voter fraud, and challenge voters at the polls. This is an example of an ideologically extreme issue. Getting ideologically extreme voters attracted to these sorts of issues has to do with the sorts of language that’s used in the discussion. “Tiller the Baby Killer,” for example, suggests that Dr. Tiller was doing something illegal, which he was not; or something that was immoral, about which I suspect we disagree strongly. It encourages people who are not thoughtful to do violent things, which they did. It also draws people with views similar to the assassin’s to join the Republican party and to become active in Republican politics. These folks may not believe in killing, but their views may not be entirely rational, either. They may be more ideologically extreme than the traditional Republican voter. Over the past 30 years or so, it appears to me, the Republican party has been following this path steadily to the right. There is your example and explanation. The Republican of today is much further to the right than was his father. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
You're painting with quite a broad brush, Bob. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
At which point do you think I'm wrong, Denise? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I am opposed to ACORN because of their tactics, not because Obama was affiliated with them. Perhaps the people most upset about the illegal immigration problem are those on the front lines who are having their safety and quality of life impacted on a daily basis. One man killed Tiller, and that one man alone is responsible, not the Republicans. Where is your evidene that those with views akin to the murderer's (I assume you mean Pro-Life folks) may not be rational? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: I said "May not be entirely rational," Denise. I didn't say "May not be rational." "May not be entirely rational" is a reference to the amount of emotionality in a comment. "May not be rational" is a suggestion that the idea may be crazy. The ideas in The anti-choice argument may be wildly emotional — as can be the arguments on the pro-choice side — and many of them are put in such a way as to accuse physicians of murder. This takes a whole class of people and reclassifies them from respected professional doing a legally useful and even laudable job, to despicable and loathsome outcast whose murder is a sanctionable or even righteous course of action. I suggest that reclassification is "not entirely rational." It is almost certainly not legal, and has been shown not to be legal on several occasions in the courts. This is not the same as rationality, it must be said, but there is, at least sometime, some overlap. The Republicans have encouraged the rhetoric that supports this position and have had, I believe, a plank in their party platform about this. They are certainly not the only people to feel this way. One man may have pulled the trigger on Tiller to shoot the fatal bullet. Another man shot him previously. Yet another published his name and address on a web site. Still another called him "Tiller the Killer" multiple times on national radio programs. I think that saying that one man pulled the trigger on Tiller is a way to dodge responsibility for what an entire movement created. It's like blaming Hitler alone for what happened in Germany, or Stalin alone for what happened in Russia. Are they responsible? You bet they are. Are they the only ones responsible? I think not. There are too many Germans who helped resist, and too many Russians who wrote for the underground papers at the cost of their lives to accept that sort of oversimplification. I don't accept it here, either. quote: Perhaps that is true, I don't know. Nor do I know how you would know. Passing a law that requires a policeman to stop and demand papers from anyone who appears to be an illegal alien, however, creates more problems than it solves. Governor Brewer had no idea how she would identify somebody who fit that description when she was questioned about that right after she finished signing the bill. She had no idea. Do you have any idea, Denise? What kind of instructions are you going to give to the police? Are you going to tell them they have to stop everybody and demand papers? That would allow them to comply with the law, but not to do anything else. If they stop people by profiling, both the individual policemen and their departments and perhaps the state are on the hook for damages. It's unconstitutional. Unless of course you think that picking people out for punishment by race is simply fine with you. That's what I would call regular contact with the police based on the color of my skin: Punishment. Perhaps you'd enjoy it, but under other circumstances, say the police paying special attention to Tea Party Nation demonstrators in Quincy, you might well find it less than thrilling. To have that happen regularly, every day, simply on the basis of your skin color, would annoy you no end, I suspect. Especially if you were an American citizen. I'd feel it an intolerable government intrusion into my private life. I'd want the government to find another way, one that didn't make me liable for paying so many fines out of my tax dollars, for example. Or that didn't put me in jail one day if I forgot to bring my papers with me. quote: Which tactics are those, Denise. There were a number of these that you thought ACORN was using that you had to be set straight about by Grinch in the thread on ACORN a few months back. Were there tactics other than that you were talking about, or were you talking about those errors you were making back at that time? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
ACORN's tactics are well-documented, including the threats and intimidation tactics used to force banks to give out unsecured loans. No need to list them once again, Denise, to those who won't open their eyes wide enough to see them. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Which unsecured loans, Mike? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The loans that were given to the thousands of people to buy homes without collateral...the same ones being foreclosed on now. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
The Homes are collateral, Mike; that's why they're repossessed. Read the mortgage papers. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Grinch set me straight about errors I had made? You're entitled to your opionion, Bob. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, shucks, then we can all buy homes, Bob. We don't need to fill out any silly loan papers or show that we have a job or the ability to pay or any of that foolishness. After all, the homes are collateral...nothing else is needed, right? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Maybe you ought to think of the appropriate word, rather than trying to repeat other people's taking points, then, Mike. Then you wouldn't end up at a loss for words like this. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Maybe you ought to think of the appropriate word, rather than trying to repeat other people's taking points, then, Mike. Then you wouldn't end up at a loss for words like this. Might you be thinking of "downpayments," perhaps? or something of that sort? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Why bother with down payments? The house is collateral! Don't make a payment and the bank takes it...right? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Ever gone to a real estate seminar, Mike, or read any of the bestselling books with titles like No Money Down? A fair number of folks have made money doing exactly that, and the practice is far from rare. Or have you been in hiding without watching tv for the past thirty years? [This message has been edited by Bob K (04-30-2010 06:23 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Most of the real estate seminars I have gone to have would up with the presenter ultimately serving a prison sentence. How IS old Tom Vu, by the way? According to you, there's no need to buy a book OR make a home purchase with any kind of payments at all. Since the house as collateral is the silver bullet, banks should be able to give away deeds on the sidewalk. The fact is that the house being collateral is not enough to make a purchase and you know it...so why continue with the tomfoolery? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Your line, Mike. If you didn't mean it, exactly what did you mean? What you said is stuff I've heard you say before. Take a deep breath, look at the facts, whatever they may be, and then come back and say what the facts really are. If you don't know what they are, then this really might be a good time to find out. Otherwise, why keep repeating something that's clearly a fiction? Getting testy with me because I'm pointing it out doesn't make the gap in the reasoning process magically vanish. It's still there. You need an explanation that's longer than a bumper sticker. Sorry. It's very hard to get an explanation that short in the first place; and getting it back up to full length is sometimes a real bear. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I don't understand that you don't understand, Bob. Thanks to ACORN pressure and tactics loans were given to those with no collateral and no way of making payments. According to you, collateral was not necessary since the home is the collateral. If collateral is not necessary, then, anyone should be able to buy a home, according to your scenario. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
In order to buy a home, what I have to do is show I have enough income, show I have a secure job, so that the income looks like it will continue, put down a down-payment of x-percent and pay a number of points at the closing. I must pay taxes and insurance and the various other costs of upkeep. Most often, the bank will sell my loan to some other organization that's in the loan buying business. These loans are pay off well for the companies that buy them if they are well chosen. As insurance against loss, the companies secure their costs against the value of the house in a given market. The house collateralizes the loan. When the homeowner goes belly up, the company is left with the value of the home and property, which it usually sells at some sort of discount to get the loss off its books quickly and so it can take a write-off business loss on its income-tax for that year. So what I'm asking you, Mike, is exactly where is all this collateral that the buyers were supposed to put down. Near as I can tell, the whole notion is somewhat odd. They put up a down-payment. They pay money to the owner of the mortgage, which builds the equity they have in the house. If they walk away from the house, they will probably loose that, and the investors that bought the home loan will take the loss for the rest, which they will improve somewhat by putting it up for sale at a loss, and then by writing off the loss on the Federal taxes. Where's the collateral? And of course they had money to make payments. They had to qualify for the loans. The people who were making the loans at the finance companies were cooking the books and writing up loans that they shouldn't have written up. When my wife and I were qualified for a loan, the bank qualified us to buy a house that was twice what we could afford. We were skeptical enough to doubt them, though they pressed us to go higher, and the market, at that time, looked as though we could have bought in, held it for a year or two, then sold it for twice what we paid. In fact, we could have, but we lived there longer than that and the market was down a bit from the height. If you were a player, an optimist, a gambler or a fool, you might have taken the plunge without so much as a second thought, and patted yourself on the back about how smart you were. If you'd gotten out in time, in fact, you would have been smart. Most of these poor schlumps got caught when the bubble burst. But about collateral, I think you've got things wrong. Maybe there's some financial wizard out there without any particular political drum to beat who might slide in some pure information on the economics of the thing? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
And of course they had money to make payments. They had to qualify for the loans. That's my point, Bob. Thanks to ACORN intimidation, threats, sit-ins, etc., many did NOT necessarily have the money to make payments or otherwise qualify for the loans. Without the ACORN tactics, they wouldn't have gotten the loans. That's why ACORN used the tactics they did. Had it simply been a situation where people came in for a loan, had enough for a down payments, had sufficient income to show they could make payments, there would have been no need for ACORN to send dozens of protesters into banks to stop business, show up on the sidewalk outside bank officials' homes, call bankers to remind them that their families safety was not always a given, or a variety of other stunts that were reported and documented. Those greedy bankers would have happily loaned money to anyone they thought could make payments. That's what they do. The fact that ACORN had to go to such lengths so get the loans for their people shows how qualified, make that unqualified, the borrowers were. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: That isn’t what happened Mike, while it's true that ACORN forced banks to stop denying loans to eligible candidates – the decision to lower the criteria for eligibility was made independently by the lenders themselves in 2002 to expand the market. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Not the way I've seen it, grinch. They forced banks to give loans to ineligible candidates, not eligible ones. Banks are a business. They are not going to turn down business, or opportunities to make profits, because a qualified person is black. That would be nonsensical. There would be no reason for ACORN to go the intimidation route unless the candidates they wanted serviced were ineligible. That's the logic of it, as I see it. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
It looks logical Mike but it isn’t actually true. I explained it once before, you may have missed it. /pip/Forum6/HTML/001859-6.html#129 . |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
