INDIVIDUALS  ARE TO BLAME,NOT ACORN,ITS NOT A COMPANY POLICY


ACORN FIRED THE INDIVIDUALS IN QUESTION

Just a mind-blowing coincidence that 4 individuals in two different offices in two different cities on two different dates are giving the almost identical advice.

Funny, the Gambino branch offices also engaged in similar policies, and lord knows it wasn't the Capo.

Don't forget the other five offices that did not give any advice to the undercover people pretending to be opening a brothel!  Oh was that not something you wanted people to know about?

Maybe not everybody gave the same advice.

But do you really believe it is pure coincidence that two offices, four people, two cities apart gave the same advice?

Even if it isn't connected, the fact that this many people in the same organization give the same absolutely horrific advice is kind of a red flag.  Maybe it is indicative of something.

Hey. That is what investigations are for. When you see this type of pattern, you just may want to look at it.  Nope. Too close to home.

But of course, the fact that one office was counseling them on how to get away with forced child sexual slavery is just a sad fact that can be overlooked.

I would have thought that when an organization is giving advice on how to get away with employing child hookers, people would at least  want to know how deep this cancer runs.  

Ooooops. But I was wrong. No need to question too closely an office giving info on getting away with child hookers.

Providers - watch out. This could lower prices like it did to farm workers.

Oh and you also forgot to mention that the employees in question were fired!

Stop picking and choosing the facts you are commenting on,  tell to whole truth!

-- Modified on 9/14/2009 4:40:15 AM

Wow. After they are caught on tape they are fired.

How did that percent get hired in the first place.

And again, you ignore the two questions:

1) Do you think it is just a coincidence that four people, in two different offices, in two different cities give almost identical advice, out of the hundreds of responses they could have come up with?

2) when two out of five offices are counseling illegal activity, and one is advising on how to get away with child sexual slavery, should we just let it drop after 4 people are fired, or does it merit further investigation to see if there is a larger pattern?

.

How typical of Charlie. He implies the statements are not true by calling them "assfacts" and saying truth is meaningless.

He does not say which one "fact" is in any way false.

He avoids the issue of whether he believes it's a coincidence.

He avoids the issue of whether allegations of abeting child sexual slavery merits further investigation.

And he insults his way out of the question.

Okay, Puppy Dog Of Communism.  Which "ass fact" was in any serious way not true?  

Come one. The only thing in your post are implications of falsehood in once sentence.  

Why, which one, and how?

One sentence, and you can't back it up.

Bow Wow.

So who are you going to believe Phil? Go ahead Phil Pull some more facts out of your ass. Whine about why I don't dispute the facts that support an obvious campaign by capitalists lackeys to smear their opponents. Phil either produce the video in question or shut the fuck up.

according to this guy, Beck has an ax to grind.

Two softballs:

FOX did not originate this story. It broke OUTSIDE of FOX. CNN even ran it.

No one needs to work at linking BHO to ACORN. He's already done that himself, in several ways.
1) He used to be a lawyer/community organizer for them.
2) As POTUS elect he pledged in December '08 to receive their advance input on how to transform America.
3) He got them $8.5 BILLION in the "stimulus" package.
4) He got the Dept. of Commerce to aggree to use them in the '10 census. OOPS. Scratch that. Some sanity still exists under Secretary Ray LaHood (R).

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/pimp_hooker_catch_staff_Js4YPEcsCcxLZhAEehLhmL

that inspite of a corrupt corporate policy, 60% of INDIVIDUAL ACORN employees defined a moral and legal boundary that they refused to cross.

Hey Dog Man.

You tell me to "produce the video" or shut up.  THEY ALREADY PRODUCED THE VIDEO.  I don't have to. It is out there. Need a link?

Three facts for you:

1. THEY ARE ON TAPE.

2. ACORN FIRED THEM BECAUSE OF IT.

3. THEY DON'T DENY IT.

Yes, than makes me believe my own eyes.

It may have been reported through another source, but so what. That is what the news does - Fox, ABC, CNN, Pravda, The London, Los Angeles, and New York Times, Der Speigel, Le Monde.  They all report stories from other sources.  So Beck reported it.  And that per se ends the topic because.....?

Beck reports something, ACORN admits its true, but because he reports it it is an assfact.  Now that is real good analysis on a top logical level.


As I have said before, you are the most religious like person I ever ran across.  Even when you see it before you on tape, even when they don't deny it, even when they fire the people for it, FOR YOU IT IS ALL "ASSFACTS" because it doesn't comport with your pre-set belief.

The fact that Beck reported it does not change the fact that ACORN ADMITS IT.

Again, you can run, but you can't hide. What fact did I say that is not true?

Name the fact that is false, and I will bow out.


-- Modified on 9/14/2009 8:30:43 AM

Watch out. Charlie likes to yap around the heels of people who post "ass facts."  

For your edifcation, for Charlie an "assfact" is something he can't disprove, but its existence bothers him so he dances around it and has to avoid explaining what is wrong with it.

Thats why I got small boobs, and a fat ass

...If I didnt have so many ''ass facts'', I wonder if I'd have bigger boobs :0~ ...


Ps....Sorry Guys, couldnt help myself, I know you ALL knew I had alot of those kinda facts, before I opened my mouth, and confirmed it

-- Modified on 9/14/2009 9:15:04 AM

You claim to have small boobs and a fat ass. I don't believe it.

Prove it or I will have Charlie yapping at you.

That is what you are. i am a communist sympathizer. I posted it as an "ass fact" because I don't know who the fuck Beck is. As far as I am concerned both of those links were "ass facts" . The truth that I see here is that the conservatives have issues with ACORN.

ACORN's position is that Conservative capitalists want to put them out of business by any means necessary and the video is part of that effort. They also say that they do not advocate criminal activities. I tend to agree with that assessment.

ACORN is a grassroots organization consisting of mainly poor people and is an easy target for those wishing to discredit the democrats. ACORN people tend to see criminal intent differently than your average conservative republican which accounts for their actions on the tape.

I have to laugh at item #2 though. Do you think the capitalist class will go along with that? What would their advance input consist of?

counselors to do when these people showed up? Deny them services or better yet call LE? Don't tell me that you go around ratting out hookers to LE.

what "assfacts" are. Oh wait, I'm sorry , You invented the concept and I gave it a name. The primary attribute of an "ass fact" is it can't
be defined as true or false.

a close look those "ass facts" as soon as I get a chance.

Accepting your defintion, you still can't say why any one specific fact can't be defined as true.

I can define one as true.  ACORN admitted it happened.  That was one of the facts that I had mentioned.  No problem with that.  

Your problem is you can't respond to anything, so you just label.  Rocking back and forth, chanting your phrases, "ass fact," "running dog," "lackey," "no god," like a monk reciiting a rosary, mindless repitition through which your faith is strengthened.

You don't have to know who the fuck Beck is, as you so elegantly put it.  He didn't make any of the videos.

His credibility is not in issue. Indeed, the beauty of video is that no one's credibility is in issue.

Conservative may very will have issues with ACORN, but it was ACORN that took the bait. Yes, they did a sting to see how ACORN would react, and now you know.  If they didn't  have a video, ACORN would deny it.

HEY, ACRON ISN'T DENYING IT. How invested do you have to be to contest something that they admit.

You believe they don't advocate criminal activities, and you define and obfuscate that there are different ways to see criminal intent.  That brings me back to my original point that you have never mentioned.  

Do you believe that is is just a coincidence that in THREE (now) different cities, in three different offices, five or six different people all give similar advice that happens to be illegal.

If you think it is a coincidence, fine. That is you.  If you don't think it is a coincidence, then the question is how did it happen.

If you can live with their on their part which included child prostitution, fine.

That is what they were advising on how to cover it up.  If that is not your definition of crime, that's great.

Personally, I always thought that a lot of liberals were good people that I just happened to disagree with. If people can't even see aiding and abetting child prostitution as bad and something that has to be investigated, I may have been wrong.

When a service is helping a person get a loan, the service knows that the borrower will be signing under anti-fraud laws.

That raises several things ACORN should have said:

1. Well, sir, you have to be honest when you are listing profession and income.

2. Well, sir, bringing in underage girls from S. American to work as prostitutes is not something we can give advice on.

3. Well, sir, if you are the owner, it is fraud to pretend you are not, and we are not allowed to encourage people to commit fraud.

THEY WERE TOLD TO LIE.  AND YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT. WOW.

No. I don't go around outing hookers to LE. But I am not getting money from the feds to encourage people to do things.  

If a client came to me and said he was going to lie on the stand, I would have to take steps to prevent or mitigate that.

The one thing that I can't do is encourage them to lie and tell them how to get away with it.

Nah. I don't think so.

Now, I don't know whether their meeting actually transpired or not. I bet BHO could cancel on them a thousand times and they'd still remain faithful.

This could almost be laughable if it weren't so serious.

ACORN really stepped over the line when they wanted to help with child prositution (http://tinyurl.com/leyecp).

You really want to defend an organization that promotes human trafficking and prostitution? Good luck with that.

Further... the head of ACORN, Bertha Lewis, says the videos were doctored.  Now if this were true, why would these people have been fired???

"What did you expect the ACORN counselors to do when these people showed up?"

I expected them to act within the law and moral boundaries, especially after underage girls were mentioned.

"Deny them services?"

Yes.

"...or better yet call LE?

Yes.

"Don't tell me that you go around ratting out hookers to LE."

I don't get my operating income from the federal governement.

Simple
Video.

Two people go in.

Question: Need loan. Can't give job. She's hooker.

Answer: Lie. Say something else.

Question:But we don't qualify.

Answer: Lie

Question: We also are getting young girls from S.A.

Answer: Lie

next office. same script.

third office. same script.


Remember, True Believer Without Doubts. the facts I recited were pretty simple.  Two cities, four people, blah, blah, blah.  I didn't have much room to distort.  

Go check it out, recite your Mantra while watching it, and it won't bother you.

Lets get something straight Phil. I make no distinction between capitalist sympathizers. You are all the same to me. As I see it ACRON is in the business of among other things helping disenfranchised people get housing. That includes alleged pimps and prostitutes. I see no problem with that. Child sex slaves are a different matter though. There is no proof that the sting operators had child sex slaves. No children were present  in the video's.

As far as coincidence go's. I would think that ACORN uses the same procedures in all of their offices to help prospective home buyers to qualify for loans. That would account for the coincidence.

Finally, I don't think any of the ACORN people have been charged with a crime in connection with these sting operations.
So was the the advice really illegal?

I see nothing wrong here.

but my issue is with your posting style. You imply that because ACORN admitted that the incident happened, that they somehow caused it to happen. Based on information that is publicly available there is no way to know that for sure. Sure there is plenty of speculation but Phil, it's all based on "ass facts".

this is something more than a right wing smear tactic against ACORN.

Of course there were no kids in the video.

See Chaz, it was a sting. That means they are trying to see what the people will do and say. And it wasn't a real hooker. Get it.

They don't bring in kids, but they dance around the fact that young girs from S.A. will be working.  They say they will be getting young girls.  For all ACORN knows this is true, and accepting that representation, ACORN says, "And let's see how we can help you."

Let me explain something about prostitution.  It is illegal, so people don't always say exactly what they mean. "Happy ending for 400 roses" has nothing to do with stories or flowers.

The fact that they didn't bring in little Janie and say, "Spread your legs for the nice ACORN lady," doesn't really cut it with me.

But you hear them talk about getting young girls to work, and ACORN tells them how to go about it, and you say, "Gosh, what does that mean. That doesn't seem illegal to me."

The fact that they haven't been charged with a crime is irrelevant.  To tell you the truth, I don't even care if it is illegal. I think it is, but it isn't worth the research.

There is a lot that is just plain wrong and immoral that is not illegal.  

I just think that decent people might object to community organizations giving advice to pimps on how to get fraudulent loans. (Yes. if you put down false info, it is fraud. Look at the Heidi Fleis case.)

I just think that decent people might hear something that hints of child prostitution and say, "Wow. That's the limit for me."

I just think that a decent organization if asked about giving advice on running a whore house and then the person says that they are bring in young girls, maybe, just maybe, a decent person would say, "What? What do you mean young girls?  We are talking about prostitution.  How young?"

Yes. Maybe when the topic is prostitution and "young girls" comes up as a side line, maybe decent people will say, "Get your ass out of here."

Actually, I think decent people would.  

Some commies might not think it is questionable. But now that I recall, you were the person who thought that when millions of peasants died it was a regrettable fact of making the Communist Omelet.

The Sentate today disgreed with you though. It voted 83 to 7 to suspend any federal housing funds from going to ACORN.

Obama's own Commerce Department ruled earlier that no U.S. Census funds will go to ACORN for the 2010 Census (and they regularly hire homeless people to do this.)

Maybe you should simply head straight to your end game and call us all rasicst right now so you can just go to bed.

This defines the difference between us. And now I am happy

They are advising them to lie and ocmmit fraud.

You don't see anything wrong. I just think it's bad.  Silly me.

They do not get upset when child prostitution is mentioned, and continue to give suggestions on how to run their business.

I think it is wrong to give advise on how to run prostitution rings with young girls from S.A. You don't think it is wrong.

If you are happy on that side of the fence, that is fine.

Of course, you were the one who was not upset when millions of peasants starved to death, so I do understand your framework of right and wrong.

Of course they didn't cause it to happen.

IT WAS A STING. The topic of the sting doesn't ever "cause it to happen." It is a trap to catch bad guys.

How thick can you be. Gosh, Phil, the people who they were trying to sting didn't know it. Gosh and golly Phil, I can't see anything.

You don't care if no crime was committed, but the very idea that ACORN helps disenfranchised people get housing by any means necessary is a problem for you? Too bad Phil. ACORN is not a LE agency or a religious organization so they don't take on the roles of those organizations. Phil, saying that you are going to commit a crime and actually committing a crime are different. If LE felt that ACORN was aiding and abetting criminals they would send a crew of donut munching thugs over there to shut them down.

That makes you an officer of the court. As such you can't really help people tell lies. ACORN is not a law firm so they can tell people what lies to tell.

When you deal with disenfranchised people lies need to be told. That is why ACORN exists. The Feds fund ACORN to perform outreach functions which the government is not able to perform itself for political reasons.

ROFLMAO... I can't believe you posted that ROFLMAO. I respect you for being honest about it. The feds will probably issue them some guidelines to clean up their housing services. They will probably get more funding to implement those new "clean" guidelines. LOL

The difference between our posts is that I advocate true freedom of thought and expression and you advocate stagnant, biased inflexible dogma. The tone of your posts are  heavy with repressed and unfocused anger.They are the darkest posts on the P&R board. Go and finish your census of the dead Phil, it fits the tone of your graveyard posts.

That is exactly the point Phil. It was a sting and no crime was committed. If LE had issues with ACORN they would mount their own sting operation. Fake stings don't count Phil.

Crime is the lowest level of behavior that is so bad that at that stage the State steps in and institutes punishment.  

On the flip side, there are many things that are bad and worthy of censure that do not get down to the bottom of the barrel in human conduct.

Censure is a form of public reproval for conduct that is not considered "the worst," but which should be discouraged and condemned.  Decent people may object to bad behavior, even it if is not criminal.

I thought it was terrible when that person bullied that girl into committing suicide over the internet.  I don't think is a crime.  There are many levels of bullying that are not a crime. It is no illegal to call a kid "fatso," and make him cry.  It is bad.

Lots of Bad is not illegal.

If your standard is that it has to be illegal, then that means that your standard is that it has to be the absolute dregs of human conduct before you will condemn it, and anything less you will live with.  

Actually your standard is even lower, since some things later become crimes but are legal at the time, but cannot be punished because of ex post facto.  Therefore, you would tolerate them even if they later became illegal, because they  could not be prosecuted.  

My standard is a little higher.  I will condemn many things that I think are bad even if they are not illegal.  

The fact that ACORN is not a church or LE does not mean that they can stoop as low as they can go.  There are a lot of groups that are not churches or LE that I think are despicable. The Klan in not a church or LE, and many of the Klan's activities are not illegal.  However, I think the are human scum, even if they are not breaking the law.  

Organizations like ACORN are taking public money and should be like Ceaser's wife.

I am not bothered by ACORN helping people who need it. You make up this bullshit that this is what bothers me. I give money to organizations that help needy.

If it is "by any means necessary," as you say, then that DOES bother me. This is especially true when the "by any means necessary" is condoning fraud and child prostitution.  They were willing to abet both of those activities.

Some people may find that troubling. Obviously, that doesn't bother you.

Knowing that you have a tolerance for those activities makes me happy that we have a different view.

You say that saying you will commit a crime and actually doing it are different.  Yes, they are. But if someone says he is going to commit child pimping, decent people may try to discourage it. But not Charlie. Okay with you if they say, "Go ahead. Here's how. And make sure they get their flu shots."

Yes, people like you will turn a blind eye and wink and smile when ACORN seems to be advising child prostitution. Doesn't bother Ol' Charlie at all. Gosh, those young hookers may turn out to be community organizers.

No. I am glad it doesn't bother you. Says a lot.

You advocate freedom of thought, like believing it is not bad when someone is willing to encourage another person to "employ" child hookers.

And the commies are so big on "freedom of thought," which is why Chavez closes down radio and TV stations, which is why Cuba has no opposition newspapers, which is why the USSR never allowed the New York Times (or even Daily Worker) to be sold in Moscow, which is why there are restrictions on the internet in China, which is why N. Korea has one radio station, which is why there is not one communist country with any opposition radio, TV, newspaper, or anything.

Freedom of thought. How can you say that with a straight face and tolerate your allies.  

Yes, I think fraud is bad. I think it is wrong to encourage child prostitution. If that is "stagnant, biased inflexible dogma," so be it.

As I say, I am happy to be that way.  I dare say that most people think this behavior is repulsive, which is why the heavily democratic Senate had such an overwhelming vote of condemnation.  

But is is only stagnant repressive Phil that is shocked.

Also, since when is my anger repressed and unfocused. I think it is pretty open and clear.

For eight years the left was angry.  Not it is some sort of symptom of evil?  

Actually, by using little cliches like "repressed" anger, you can avoid everything I said.

Yes, Charlie, the Commie, The Great Defender of Free Speech.  Want to employ child hookers. Here's how.

The fact is that they were saying these things.
It doesn't matter who they said it to.

If they are willing to condon child prostitution, the level of immorality is the same whether they say it to LE or someone else.

This reflects their activities, regardless of who ran it.

True, the film maker can't arrest, but that doesn't change the fact that ACORN people were acting in a certain way.

It is evil to be willing to encourage child prostitution, even if you are encouring someone who is not a cop.

At last we are clear, at least half way.

You say you believe when you deal with the disenfrachised lies need to be told which is why ACORN exists. This is the classic "ends justifies the means." Lie, condone fraud. It is all for the goal

In other words, you believe that doing bad - telling lies - is justified. And you believe that ACORN exists for that purpose - assisting the lies.

SOme people believe - in such a stagnant and repressive manner - that you can try to achieve good without resorting to lies and other evils.

Of course, you avoid the issue of being willing to assist child prostitution, but if you are disenfranchised, that is okay also.

In a sense I am not surprised.  To achieve its "worthy" goals, communism has always been willing to tolerate all sorts of things that are universally considered bad.

At least you admit that they are telling lies and ACORN was willing to assist.  With that level of agreement, we can just make our own judgments.

You must have gone to bed early last night. How on Earth will you rest tonight?

Underground and change their name...I also think they should be investigated for their role in the financial crisis...CAUSE I KNOW THEY PLAYED A HUGE ROLE IN THE HOUSING CRISIS

your judgements about charlie445 to yourself. Have you thought about why organizations like ACORN exist? I don't think you have the ability to think in terms of practical reality. I am quite flexible  when it comes to good and bad. I Try to keep things in their original contexts as I see them. I think the ACORN employees involved in the sting were not guilty of anything but being stupid.
I think ACORN itself does not advocate criminal activities.

In an earlier discussion on this board I suggested that people who molest children be condemned to death and I stand by that suggestion.

The senate has voted to end funding for ACORNS housing outreach program so it seems that the sting paid off for you and your ilk.

TJ at the end of the day ACORN is a capitalist funded organization whose primary function is to turn out votes for the democratic party. They organize disenfranchised people to vote for democrats sort of like Operation PUSH but without the religion. Had they been a religious group they wouldn't have the problems that they have. Right wing conservatives don't usually attack religious groups.

What have Cuba, China,or Russia and Chavez got to do with this post. I am a US communist. You apparently don't know a damn thing about US communists.

You have a childish view of what good and bad is, are you an 11 year old? It's past your nap time.

Those ACORN guys served anyone who showed up , white or black.
These attacks are not racist. They are driven by partisan politics.

My, it is the kettle calling the pot black. You have often denigrated opinions expressed by saying the poster was a lackey or capitalist. Indeed, you did so in this thread.  Now, expressing opinions about the posters views are beyond the pale.

In fact, the issue of ACORN does come down to individuals' sense of good and bad.  And that makes the individuals's values relevant. One either approves of this type of conduct or does not. It does speak to the individual.

Also, it shows what a person values.  That is why I have referenced the "anything justifies the end mentality.)  Indeed, you explain it by saying you are flexible in terms of good and bad.

I am also. I think some things do depend on context.  But things like attempted fraud or encouraging fraud should not be done to get a loan.  

On a more rigid note, I just think condoning child prostitution is bad. If someone is not able to agree that condoning child prostitution - which is what they did in princple - is bad. That speaks about the person. And you go further. you are not only not shocked by it, you seek to justify it.

I don't have to think about why groups like ACORN exist. I sympathize with their reasons. In fact, I have donated time and money to groups with similar goals, doing pro bono work for organizations with community goals.  (Although in the last 10 years I have done less because of other work)

It is because I am sympathetic with the good that can be done that I am even angrier when a group tarnishes the field with a terrible record of fraud.  

If some day - and I am only saying "if" - a lot  of the allegations against ACORN prove to be true and it turns out there was voter fraud, condoning financial fraud, etc, here is my prediction.

There will be a lot of people even angrier than the current tidal wave of Senate revulsion where the vast, vast majority of the president's own party ran in horror and fear from an organization so closely associated with him.

This will tarnish things associated with this type of movement, and will damage the good ones as well as take down the bad.

It can only hurt the poor and disadvantaged in the long run.

You say I have a childish view of what is good and bad.

Hey, 80% of the president's own party just agreed with me.

There will be a 15% core of true believers who will defend this conduct.  I dare say your minority position of acceptance is closer to a fringe view than my majority view is childish.

I say I disapprove of anyone who is willing to condone child prostitution in any way, and you say I am childish.

Again, Puppy Dog of Dated Communism, the heavy majority of the President's allies are running for cover.

Bark, Bark.



Wow.

I didn't say that you advocate child sex abuse.

I said that you are excusing people who were willing to assist in child prostitution.

That is what ACORN was doing. They were telling people how to run young girls as hookers. They were willing to assist, even if they didn't know it was a sting.

You are willing to look the other way an offer excuses while they do so.

It is like when the FBI sets up a fake ad on the internet for sex with kids and someone answers. The kid doesn't exist, but the person who answers does not know. Nonetheless, it shows what he is willing to do.

The fact that this case does not involve LE is not relevant.  ACORN employees showed what they were willing to do - namely abet child prostitution.

And you have no problem with what they did, and make excuses.

As to why Cuba and the others are relevant to the issue of free speech: you may be a US communists, but the US communists never broke with the ones I mentioned for their horrific record on free speech.

In spite of the fact that these countries limit speech terribly, the US communsts have been consistent supporters and rarely, if ever critical.  For 80 years the US communists never had a bad word to say about any of these countries, and they still don't have anything bad to say about Chavez and free speech.

But Bingo - offer to give advice on fraud and the First Amendment rings true.

That is why it is so funny when a communist suddenly advocates free speech.  Pretty selective in where commies encourage it.

Sure avoids any substance. Just a "Yes it does."

Well, "No it doesn't"

that are not retreating to the racist accusation on most political arena arguments as of late.

You appreciate my honesty? What? You think I’m usually dishonest? Is that your belief about most people here? Does that mean that your comments are generally dishonest?

Phil TER is forum that is dedicated to activities that are deemed illegal in most places. Why do you bother even posting here?  I have an extremely low opinion of lawyers and your posts reinforce my sense of loathing for your profession.

What people do in principle is not relevant to this discussion. How does a person attempt fraud in principle?  How do you murder a person in principle?  Playing the game "Monopoly" is like being a capitalist in principle, once the game is over the players can be what they were before the game started. In the context of the game the players can act like scumbag capitalists but after its over they can be communist tyrants if they want to be.

The fact that you post on TER and claim to be an officer of the court "in principle"  says a lot about dncphil. To me Phil , reality counts and fuck what happens "in principle".

Phil, politicians tend to be quite spineless when confronted with allegations involving the molestation of children. They tend to err on the side of caution. ACRON can easily be dumped and other groups can easily take its place. In other words Phil ACORN is expendable, it has served it's purpose. In this context , the senate democrats can appear to be "good" by cutting of funding to their former ally. This does not make ACORN guilty of anything but employing stupid people though. in this context You shrill cries and your self righteous rants about child prostitution just make dncphil more of a naive political neophyte than a "good" person.

I didn't say anything about "attempting things in principle."  

However, you can either support or condemn activities.  And you can condemn or support people who try to assist those activities.

Legally, it is possible to "attempt" to commit a crime even when the crime would not be committed in reality.  The classic paradigm is a person who thinks someone is sleeping in a bed and fires bullets into the bed.  It turns out that there was no one in the bed.

In such a situation, the person tried to commit murder.  The acts that he did, with the mental state he had show something about his morality. Namely, that he would kill if he had the chance.

Now, when someone hears about this they can either excuse the person or condemn him.

If you excuse him, you are saying, "Well, he would have killed if he could, but he didn't, so I make no judgment about his nature."

Or you can say, "He would kill if he could. I do not approve of that type of person."

In ACORN's case - 4 offices would be willing to commit these acts. It says something about them.

You don't think it is wrong to try to help commit crimes, including child prostitution.

you know about the subject at hand.  The ICL has always had something to say in opposition to the different implementations of communism in many parts of the world.

What I see here is a lawyer who endorses the "sting" tactic. An abhorrent tactic commonly called the "frame up" . A lawyer like you gets a lot of business as a result of this tactic, don't you Phil? Heres  how it works Phil. Some con artists get a "patsy" to say some things while being recorded by a hidden camera and the tape is presented to Phil as evidence of a crime. Phil then agrees that "in principle" a crime has been committed and even though there was no proof of intent to commit a crime or no evidence that a crime has been committed it's ok with Phil because just the thought of such a crime is a punishable offense in Phil's narrow mind.

Phil in fact has no way to know what was going through the minds of the ACORN employees involved in this frame up but he forges ahead with his shrill indictments and anyone who stands as a voice of reason gets accused of the crime or is denounced as a sympathizer of criminals. Phil gets all of his facts from viewing the tape. So Phil is this a fair assessment of your posts?

What else can be said that hasn't already been said Phil. Discussing anything with you is almost pointless. When all else fails you simply resort to lies and half truths. You are a lawyer and that's what lawyers do. Right Phil?

It meant what I posted and you can take it any way you want to take it. The post was directed to you and no one else.

Yes, politicians are spineless. They do follow the crowds. That was my point. It is not a handful of right wing nuts that are offended by ACORN.

My point was that the vast majority of people think this is pathetic conduct that is not excusable.  My point was that only a handful of idealogues will continue to make excuses for ACORN and that small group of idealogues will not condemn them.

The reaction of the politicians reflect the fact that they follow the crowds. Yes you are right. But when I say "look around you," it is to point out that most people think it is terrible, and you are in a small group.  

That is why even papers like the L.A. Times that were major Obama supporters have editorials saying that ACORN was way out of line.

No. I still think groups that WOULD assist child prostitution, if they could, are terrible.  you think the fact that they would, but didn't, isn't indicative of their moral compass.

The American communists have never taken strong stands against communist countries that commit horrific civil rights abuses.  They go to places like Cuba and come back singing praises of the Glorious Leader.

Yes. I endorse sting operations.  The only way that child molestors can be arrested "before the fact" is to put out a fake add or post and let them come to you.  The only other alternative is to wait until they actually molest children and hope it gets reported.  Many times it doesn't, so they get away.

The same can be said of many other crimes that are horrific.

Is it used in some crimes that aren't that bad? Yes, it is. But that doesn't mean the tactic itself is bad.  

Yes, I don't object to a sting operation.

Keep lying. I never said they approve in princple. I said they were willing to aid and abet the acts.  

SOmeone said, "How do I do X."

They don't say, "X is wrong." They say "here is how you do X."

Yes, to me that shows you are willing to encourage it. At the very least, you are not willing to stand up to it.

And when the X is child prostitution, you fill in the blank.

Phil, given the proper circumstances people will kill other people.
So lets not talk about killing.

Murder is another matter though. You have defined what you think an attempted murder would look like? correct? You did this to establish the state of mind of a person who would commit murder.Correct? But no one was actually hurt right?  Phil who did the person who fired the shots think was in the bed? That is important because you need to establish whether our shooter wants to kill all people that he finds in beds or he just wants to kill that particular person. That determines what I would think about our bed shooter. Phil, come up with another example then post it ok?

Having spent some years in the military, I know a bit about killing people. Do you think you can get your point across without talking about killing people?

As I said before I condemn child prostitution and I don't think that ACORN as an organization advocated child prostitution.

proper evidence evidence before passing judgement, than those who don't. To me the video was not proper evidence to say that ACORN as an organization was guilty of anything other than employing stupid people. Fuck what any one else thinks. Now if an investigation turns up an ACORN brothel employing child prostitutes thin I will change my opinion.

I support child prostitution? Even if I say I don't support child prostitution?  I say I don't condemn the different communist governments around the world so you say I support mass murder.
I say I don't support non LE implemented sting operations and you say I am against LE sting operations.  Whats next Phil?

Do you really not understand how analogies work?  I was using attempted murder as an example for hypothetical purposes to illustrate a point.

You could do the same thing with attempted grand theft - stealing a box you mistakingly think has $1000 in it. It shows what you would do if you have the chance, and it shows your moral character.

You could do the same thing with with attempted child molest, as in the stings they run.

You could do the same thing using X as a symbol.

It shows that if you could you would do murder, grand theft, child molest, OR EVEN X. It shows the type of person you are.

The evil in all cases never happened. But it did not happen because the person was above doing it. It didn't happen because as a fortuitous fluke the person was wrong.

BUT IS SHOWS THAT THE PERSON WOULD DO IF HE HAD THE CHANCE, which reveals his morality.

If they had the chance ACORN would assist in fraud and child prostitution. They tried to do so, but unknown to them, the facts didn't exist. But if the world had been as they believed, that is what they would have done.  

That shows their morality.  

YOU ARE RIGHT. They did not ADVOCATE child prostitution, and I never said you did.  But they were willing to assist someone in doing it, even if they don't advocate it.

And you are willing to support someone like that.

Proper evidence is good in court where people's lives, money, and/or freedom depends on it.

There is nothing wrong with making personal judgments based on what you see even if it doesn't reach formal evidentiary standards. Indeed, many evidentiary standards are designed for public policy purposes other than reaching the truth, so "proper evidence" is not even the best way of reaching the truth.

What you see is employees of one organization acting in a similar manner in different locations with no apparent connection between them.  

You may not accept it as having proven anything YET, but if it doesn't even make you want to question the incredible coincidence, you are just avoiding the issue.

This is a classic situation of prima facie evidence where at the very least a normal response would be, "Hey, there may be smoke. Let's see if there is a fire."

I never said you support child prostitution.  

I don't know how many times you can distort a rather simple point.

I don't think you can find one thing that you mentioned that I actually said.

To make it clear one more time: An organization appears to be willing to aid child prostitution. You do not condemn that organization for that action.  This doesn't mean you support prostitution of minors. It means that you are unable to be critical of an organization that does.

Indeed, the mass murder is a good example. I never said you support it.  I said some other nations have done it and you are not willing to condemn it.  That doesn't mean you support what they are doing. Just that you have a motive not to condemn it.

Bet you can't name one specific lie I told.

A general, "they are all lies," or "everything," or "you always" is not one specific lie.  

Common Puppy.

We are back to "you lie."

-- Modified on 9/16/2009 1:15:48 PM

You are posting utter nonsense again. On the other hand now that I think about it lawyers have a propensity to do whatever they have a chance to do. You are a lawyer so you speak from your personal experience don't you.  I made it quit clear that I support no immoral or illegal activities involving children nor do I support any one that does.

I don't accept the video as evidence that ACORN as an organization advocates child prostitution.

What i see is that ACORN has some stupid people working there.

These are all well accepted principles.

You are wrong. I am not speaking from personal experience. I have only had a small number of attempt cases, and none of them involved the principles of impossibility due to factual circumstances.  However, I do remember the principles well.

Also, they are not even "legal" principles but rather are logical principles that carry legal implications.

And again, you distort (or don't understand) I never said they advocate child prostitution. Just that they are willing to aid it if it suits their other purposes.

You don't have to accept the video as "evidence." You don't have to accept things you see and hear. You can assume that it is edited, althought that is an assumption that as of yet has no evidence.

Funny. you don't accept the evidence as it exists, but you accept the unproven hypothosis that it was doctored.

Wow. That's a leap.

Yes, they may have stupid people. But do you think that it is just a coincidence that three set of stupid people in three cities in three offices give almost identical advice to the same situation?

If you believe it is a coincidence, that is fine.  I just wonder if you are always so willing to believe in that type of coincidence or whether a pattern indicates something.

The more you post the less credible your posts become.

Do you think that you made a fair and reasonable interpretation of what I posted?

Whatever I found you would simply deny so why should I waste my time Phil?

In this case I would want to know how many offices the sting operators went to. And I would want to hear it from them. If they only went to the offices that were on video , then I want to interview the ACORN employees involved in the sting. It might be that this is a plot by the democrats to shut down ACORN because they are becoming a political liability. This would be a good way to do it. If that is the case this could get very interesting. As it stands the governing board of ACORN has called a halt to all services while an internal operations review is taking place. It is being said that the sting operators were right wing activists, if so they may have done the democrats a huge favor. Now thats what I call a coincidence.

that is was doctored was an attempt by ACORN to discredit it and I think, FOX news. BTW I have never viewed the video so I don't know what's on it.

I just do not believe that you are so eager to hear from the accused when the accused is on the other side.

I am sure there is a "rush to judgment" and you are the first to conclude that nefarious conduct is going on at the slightest hint of wrongdoing.

Suddenly, you need a full investigation, and need to hear A, B, and C.

Anyway, you are still avoiding the question: Based on what you have seen so far - four cities, 7 emplowyees, differnet offices, same advice. - BASED ON WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN SO FAR: do you think it's a coincidence?

Hey, Pups Dog. You can change your mind as "new evidence" developes. It is okay to have a preliminary opinion based on current information.

Good excuse. Thry it. Easy to prove one lie that I shouldn't be able to credibly deny.  Go ahead. You have spent so much time so far. A few more minutes.
Come on, Puppy. Bring it on.
Just one.

They would become more credible if you could answer one question, which you never can do.

Instead, you have to get more and more into insults of "obnoxious" etc.

Can't answer a question?  Yeah, I will be a jerk. Mutual.

You have been talking about it for I don't know how many posts.

Now you say you never viewed it.

You have commented on it in a dozen ways.

Now you say you never viewed it.

Why not look at it so you know what you are talking about.

Jesus. How can you debate it for this long without knowing what it is.

You really are a religious person of the most profound sort.

formed an opinion. Then I entered into a discussion with you based on what I had read. I don't need to view the video , after all it is not a work of art is it? Is there any fucking in it? I like porn. Phil , If there was some fucking in it I would view it. What religion am I Phil? There is no god.

Did you read my posts Phil? I never say that I viewed the video. I merely acknowledged and made references to the existence of the video. In addition to that Phil I took your word for it when you said it existed. I see no problem with that Phil, Do you? You wouldn't lie in a post would you Phil?

They are staffed with Hard core unemployable people. People that work there  would normally be on welfare. These people are street wise and could tell that these people weren't who they appeared to be but they played along with the story. Getting fired from ACORN was of no consequence to them. They probably didn't believe anything that the sting operators said. I think that the staff being from the same cultural background in all of those offices reacted in the same way to the sting operators. So Phil , in that context I don't think it was a coincidence. I think that this is a classic democratic party move. Those kids made it so easy to dump ACORN. LOL . Leave it to the right wing to clean up a democratic party mess LOL ROFLMAO.

I bet the democrats are breathing a collective sigh of relief over this  mess. And ACORN was cost effective too. The democrats got ACORN at the taxpayers expense. ACORN helped the Democrats win back the government. LOL Now the democrats can be rid of them with no questions asked. ROFLMAO. You see Phil, only a commie can think this way LOL.

apparently the democrat controlled senate gets it too. Now the democrats can weasel out of any commitment that they might have had to ACORN. If ACORN is dissolved the democrats get the last laugh. Beck and his ilk were very helpful to the democrats in this. What the fuck were they thinking?  I love US politics LOL

So no Phil I won't be checking your posts for lies tonight. Its been fun Phil

Nothing like seeing the thing you are talking about to know what you are talking about.

And no, you didn't take my word the video existed. I mentioned it, and you told me to produce it, as if it didn't exist. You had to make a big challenge to me as if it didn't exist.

As to your question:  I say you are religious not because you belong to a particular group or sect, like Luthern or Hindu.

Rather, it is because your manner of thinking is identical to that manner in which devout religious people think.  You have a preconceived idea of the facts and if there is reason to question the fact, you have to dispute it or your world view is impacted.  

Thus, when you see a fact that is in every history book of any serious nature, you have to do everything to avoid just saying, "Yes. That is true."

Another trait is the constant repitition of phrases that reflect the world view.  Your response to many things is rote, even if you don't know they exist. This is an example. I mentioned something about the video, and you just dismiss it with something like, "Fox" or "ass fact."

Well, it doesn't matter if it was reported on Fox. The story is the same as when it was later reported on CNN. But with one word, you could rebut it.  

Ditto "ass fact."  you just say the word and that is the answer, regardless of how many times I say, "What was inaccurate?"

This is why I say you are like a religious person.

Rather than accept the fact, you are accepting facts that are not yet known, like these 6 or 7 staffers are all hard core unemployable or street wise or really knew the people were conning them or anything else.

There is nothing that has come out yet that indicates that about these people, but rather than believe on logical conclusion you have to adopt something about which there is no evidence YET.  

That is why I say you are "religious."  that is the mentality of the devoutly religious.

I did ask the right question. A very clear and specific one. Numerous times. You can't answer. Ever.

We will see how good it is in the long run for Dems.  SOmetimes these investigations go in ways that people don't like.  They start with one thing, then they look at another.  ACORN threatened to sue. That opens discovery. They can be asked to produce all records of training sessions.  They can be asked to provide info re contacts with representative in congress.

Things can get really hairy. Don't start laughing yet.

You will be checking the posts. and you will read this.

We will see how well the Dems can avoid it. Then I will remind you of it again.

And the point of answering a question is it shows you know what you are talking about.

But you didn't read this.

ACORN needs to close for good.  

When you have that many rotten people within an organization, be it AIG, Enron, Country Wide Mortgage, etc., it is like a bad apple, it will keep festering until it rots the very core and then you have no other alternative but to throw it away.