Voter registration fraud is incredibly common. The fact that they found it themselves and reported it for investigation themselves is a mark in their favour in my opinion.Well it certainly isn't a positive mark. They are responsible for the conduct of their workers and even if they reported fraud amonst their ranks, it is still their failure.
http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_13352704CNN gave her an interview yesterday and she was fired. Also the Carlos from tape 5 was fired even though he reported the incident to police.
Anybody else have a weird feeling about this 'investigation'? The footage I see is obviously very heavily edited.
Supposedly, these 12 underage girls from El Salvador are due to arrive late Friday or early Saturday by boat! A bit unusual for immigrants from El Salvador, wouldn't you say? Juan sounds incredulous and asks, "These people came from El Salvador?" And then the tape is stopped. Keep in mind at this point they are being referred to as 12 girls. Then he is told that the intention is to have a house with 12 underage prostitutes and that they don't want any problems with the police or with neighbors. "Yeah, that's right", was the only thing Juan said and then the tape is cut again... just when a really incriminating (or exculpatory) bit might be expected. Why was it edited here? When Juan is asked what he needs regarding the 12 underage prostitutes, he says he needs the location that the girls will be taken. (5:35) Why? He says that he's working with the District Attorney's (Oh! That's not good!). And just then the tape is edited... Why? What did he say next? Why was this crucial part edited? Why did he mention the DA's office? Why did he mention that he was working with them? Then the pimp changes the story to say that the girls will be landing at a location in Mexico, perhaps Tijuana, and then cross the border. It goes on and on like this.
I've got a sick feeling about this sting. It sounds like this poor sap was duped into talking to these two and they heavily edited the conversation to make him look really bad.
I'd like to see the unedited footage in its entirety.
Do the problems in his personal life mean he's wrong about ACORN?Ahhh, This all explains why the man who bills himself as "the Senate’s most outspoken critic of
ACORN," Sen. David Vitter, R-Louisiana. was found in brothels accross the nation.
He's was just looking for people to assist in the investigations into ACORN !
FOX NEWS quoting on Vitter's encounters with prostitutes:
"- he just wanted to have somebody listen to him, you know"
"- he was a "decent guy" who appeared to be in need of company"
"- guys coming over hanging out with the girls and having a few cocktails, and men being men."
"- He's just a decent, normal guy"
"- Republicans most likely would stand behind Vitter despite the new allegations.
"- They aren't going to throw him to the wolves," he said, citing support from religious
organizations, conservative commentators and the general public."
I think that's a very good question. There are defenses of ACORN's behavior of the form "Fox News is a bounch of scoundrels" or "the Republicans are a bunch of scoundrels".Do the problems in his personal life mean he's wrong about ACORN?
After looking at some of these video's I've to admit that they are pretty bizarre.Do the problems in his personal life mean he's wrong about ACORN?
I think the organization has grown too large and lost control - if not focus.After looking at some of these video's I've to admit that they are pretty bizarre.
It's hard to believe that Acorn as a whole is some kind of criminal organization though.
It seems they do have employed a lot of people from the real bottom of society, maybe
from some naive progressive political viewpoint.
Middle America doesn't live around prostitution and is troubled by child exploitation. We work hard to earn a living and stay out of the filth. We expect our tax dollars to be used more wisely. Those ACORN people on the tape are (for all practical purposes) an extension of the Government - quasi-Government employees ala tax dollars and tax credits enable the organization. We the people expect better.At Acorn on the other hand it was the unsophisticated bottom of the barrel employees in the inner cities who appeared to cooperate with the sting although there was no follow through with any of the requests.
IMHO it all boils down to greed. Pfizer makes mega bucks and will despite the record fine.
The Acorn employees from my point of view, and from several articles I have read, appeared to want a piece of the action. Or perhaps they simply were not shocked by the requests because they live around prostitution on a daily basis. And yes that does include underage prostitution.
Unlike Pfizer the Acorn scandal will be talked to death.
And you keep ignoring my basic question. Use your own definitions and assign your own purpose. Can you justify using coercion to enforce funding of them.You're still stuck on defining tit for tat what you believe or don't believe charity is while ignoring what the purpose of ACORN is or ANY government program for that matter.
Again you confuse the two "We's" and again you miss the point. Yes I agree "We" ought to help the poor. And my motives are not altruistic either. But "We" should do it solely through the private sector. I assert that government is NOT necessary in this role. And again I harp on the point that Government=use of coercive force means the use of government in this role cannot be justified.I think its essential to help the poor as a society, not out of an act of charity,
therefor having programs that help the under served participate in our democracy is important to our government and the very ideology of democracy itself.
Again you missed the point. You feel strongly about this, of course. But how would you feel about your tax dollars being so used? Suppose the "moral majority" amended the constitution to allow for tax funding of religiously based "helping the poor"? Wouldn't you agree that it is unfair for you to be forced to fund it?I don't agree with supporting religious groups through tax dollars at all and i'm a firm believer in the separation of church and state. That argument is entirely different than looking at social issues and solving them through tax payer dollars. I'd rather "throw money at a problem" then "throw god into it" :)
What is welfare if not altruism? Oh yea it is also buying votes but that's even less justifiable.I don't see government so black and white that welfare = charity and non welfare != charity.
I covered that. The purpose of the military is opposing force with force. The purpose of the police likewise is opposing force with force. The purpose of welfare? Opposing poverty with force.In fact for argument sake i say there is more risk in taxing the people for the military then there is risk in taxing people for the greater welfare of all. Why is it that people often equate welfare with an oppressive taxaction against will but the funding of military expenditures as a fair taxation at will? Which one is truly representative of the people and which one is representative of the state itself???
Name one single act of government which is not enforced by the threat of imprisonment? I'm not talking about non-binding resolutions to make tuesday's "Happy Feel Good" day. I'm talking about actual laws or judicial/executive orders, including allocation of spending. Remember that the value of the US Dollar is fundamentally based in the requirement to pay taxes in dollars, plus the Federal law prohibiting private sector currency. I could insist on trading my services and selling my products for barter. But the Tax Man will still audit my "income" and put me in jail if I don't pay what I owe in the established Legal Tender.Governance isn't through force unless you make it that way. If you polarize yourself from the real issues at hand then that is something you are choosing to do.
There is no "To me" about it. Government is what government does. It's nature is definitional. They are those who we authorize to use force.To me, government is a civil service working issues that impact society.
I'm not arguing about what is worthy or not. You can't twist my position into "damn the poor". I dare say I've helped far more poor than you in far more ways. But ways of my choosing, and with effects I can see and judge, and to individuals I know are worthy and in true need. I'm arguing the fundamental question which you refuse to address. You don't like my word charity? Fine! Let me rephrase it:I think humanity is just as much a worthy cause as the "perceived violence" that you believe is a worthy cause. But once again.. we're fighting the philosophy of government and not the fact there are disenfranchised voters regardless of what we think the government should be.
The ACORN employee realized that this was a joke and she played along. No need to investigate anything.ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now is in the news again.
Should any more tax payer funds be given to ACORN or should they first be investigated?
There is that Art 1, Sec 8 bit:3. There is nothing in the Constitution authorizing such funding.
Any other questions? Skippy
Whether the representatives should have availed themselves of that power in this case is another matter.Art I said:The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, [....] and provide for the [...] general Welfare of the United States; ...
YES one BIG question1. They engage in political activities.
2. Their finances are not transparent.
3. There is nothing in the Constitution authorizing such funding.
Any other questions? Skippy
ACORN funding needs to be reviewed. What is the ROI? What has been discoverd undermines the people of the US (voter fraud, IRS fraud). Usually, when a few things have been discovered, there is more that has not.There is that Art 1, Sec 8 bit:Whether the representatives should have availed themselves of that power in this case is another matter.
His college work was not exactly serious. Banning Lucky Charms cereal at Rutgers??The pair that did this story, James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, deserve a good shot at the Pulitzer prize given how the rest of the media missed it.
That wasn't my point at all. Pfizer's record $2.3 billion fine for health care related fraud was in and out of the news in only one day.Edward, that's exactly my point. Does Pfizer doing something wrong make what ACORN has done right?
A student 'documentary film maker' wearing what amounts to a halloween costume and carrying a hidden camera (I have on in my phone, how about you?) and you want to know who funded them? Are you serious?YES one BIG question
who funded the witch hunt ?
and paid for the fake pimp expenses ??????????
will fox ever show the tapes from acorn offices that rejected
the fake ho and pimp ?????
or the full unedited tapes of the people who are charged with misconduct ???