- #71
WhoWee
- 219
- 0
byronm said:Perhaps this belonged in the other thread we're debating in ;)
I was responding to the mheslep post of the large chart - didn't want to re-post the entire graphic.
byronm said:Perhaps this belonged in the other thread we're debating in ;)
WhoWee said:Please be clear when posting opinions. Again, check out the rule book.
WhoWee said:Has anyone found a link regarding this police report yet?
http://www.10news.com/news/20975217/detail.htmlO'Keefe is heard in the video saying, "I want to buy a house and this is my girlfriend, and she's a prostitute."
Vera said he was told the woman needed to escape her controlling pimp, who wouldn't let her start a new life.
Immediately, Vera said he offered to call the police but the filmmaker quickly stopped him.
"Don't call the police because I'm going to be a lawyer," O'Keefe said in the video.
After the pair left the building, Vera said he called the National City Police Department.
National City police confirmed that Vera contacted them, but said there was not enough information about the couple to file a formal report.
Wax said:That guy in the last footage reported the incident to the police after it was over. I'm not sure if he filed a report but according to CNN, he told a police officer.
chemisttree said:According to National City Police he called but there wasn't enough information to file a report. Just a cell phone number that was likely bogus.
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.russ_watters said: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_13352704Wax said:CNN 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.
chemisttree said:http://www.10news.com/news/20975217/detail.html
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.
Hans de Vries said: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 across 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."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288868,00.html
Oh well...
Regards, Hans
WhoWee said:Do the problems in his personal life mean he's wrong about ACORN?
WhoWee said:Do the problems in his personal life mean he's wrong about ACORN?
Hans de Vries said: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.
Regards, Hans
edward said: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.
http://neprimer.com/ePress/Child-Prostitution-Americas-Dirty-Secret.htm
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.byronm said: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.
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.
WhoWee said:ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now is in the news again.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/16/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5315657.shtml
Should any more tax payer funds be given to ACORN or should they first be investigated?
skippy1729 said: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; ...
skippy1729 said:1. 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
mheslep said:There is that Art 1, Sec 8 bit:Whether the representatives should have availed themselves of that power in this case is another matter.
mheslep said: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.
Funny. Good for him.edward said:His college work was not exactly serious. Banning Lucky Charms cereal at Rutgers??
Vanadium 50 said:Edward, that's exactly my point. Does Pfizer doing something wrong make what ACORN has done right?
ray b said: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 ?
skippy1729 said:1. 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
ray b said: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 ?
skippy1729 said:Several people have mentioned Article 1, Section 8. Here is what Thomas Jefferson has to say about that provision:
:snip:
So, I will repeat, There is nothing in the Constitution authorizing such funding.
Skippy
TheStatutoryApe said:Can you please explain why exactly you seem to think that government funding of ACORN would be precluded?
skippy1729 said:It is not covered by any of the enumerated powers.
Skippy
ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) is a non-profit organization that advocates for low-income and minority communities. It receives government funding to support its various community programs and initiatives, such as housing assistance, voter registration, and job training.
ACORN has faced allegations of voter fraud and mismanagement of funds, which have led to calls for its government funding to be cut. In 2009, a series of undercover videos were released that appeared to show ACORN employees providing advice on how to evade taxes and engage in illegal activities.
Those in favor of cutting ACORN's funding argue that the organization has a history of fraudulent activities and should not be supported by taxpayer money. They also argue that there are other organizations that can provide similar services without the controversy surrounding ACORN. On the other hand, supporters of ACORN argue that the organization provides valuable services to low-income communities and that cutting its funding would harm those who rely on its programs.
In 2010, Congress passed a law that prohibited federal funding to ACORN and its affiliates. However, this law was later ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge and ACORN continued to receive government funding. In 2012, ACORN announced that it was shutting down due to financial difficulties, but some of its state chapters continued to operate under different names.
As of now, ACORN is not receiving any federal funding. However, some of its state chapters may still receive funding from local or state governments. In addition, ACORN's successor organizations, such as the New York Communities for Change, continue to receive government funding for their community programs.