Acorn Helps Pimp and Working Girl Land a Loan

Who ran Congress during Bush's first six years? Oh, that's right. The Republican Party. So let me ask again. What was it about the Republican Party that led us to an unjustifiable war?

Poor Americans want a house like anyone else. If a banker tells you that you can afford a big house, you buy it right? P.T. Barnum said there was a sucker born every minute and he was right.

If Bush tells you to go shopping after 9/11, you do that right?
 
No, I didn't. And I didn't go shopping when he told me that we needed to spend our way out of this recession either.

You're forgetting, the Republicans did not have a controlling majority of Congress leading up to the Iraq war. Even if every single Republican said "WAR WAR WAR", they still needed Democratic votes. You should read former Senator Lincoln Chafee's book "Against the Tide". Chafee was the only Republican Senator to vote against the Iraqi war. It's a good read.

Also, I'd like to point out, crazy Ron Paul voted against the war too.
 
I like Ron Paul. I guess it's just shitty that we let Bush do what he thought was right for a couple years but Obama gets the shaft right out the gate.
 
Ron Paul is the only political candidate that I've put a yard sign up for.

As for Bush's actions, I was a bit younger then, but I thought he was a moron when he was elected, wasn't keen on him even directly after 9/11, didn't see what the big deal with Natalie speaking out "against" him was and am sad to say I was rooting for John Kerry in 2004. Not in a "I hope John Kerry wins" way, but a "I hope Bush loses" way... (Didn't vote for either one...)

So - it's not really fair to assume that all of us speaking out against Obama were sucking on Bush's teats when he was in charge. I know you don't honestly believe that, though.
 
You and fullmetal regurgitate right wing talking points every five minutes. Smaller government. Check. State's rights. Check. Problem is that those points have no basis in reality. I used to be even more radical than I am now but finally realized that this country will never resemble Europe.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']See, it would appear you're not that familiar with it either.

Entrapment requires one major thing. Law enforcement personnel.

Journalists aren't law enforcement.[/QUOTE]

The difference I'm alluding to from "To Catch a Predator" is a significant one that is not the law/journalism boundary.

In the case of TCAP, irrespective of what I think of the show, the people they set up make initial contact themselves, initiate flirting themselves, and arrange meetings themselves, openly and explicitly stating that the intent of the meeting is for sexual relations. It is wholly reasonable, then, to think that the persons they set up would be acting in precisely the same way they did with the TCAP trap with underage children. At no point was anyone coaxed into illegal behavior.

In the case of ACORN, however, the Republicans who went into these offices with the tape openly professed (in terms of their roles) both their illegal professions and their desire to secure a loan. The persons making the accusations of corruption have provided the source of corruption, and initiated knowledge of the corrupt action themselves. It is unreasonable to conclude, based on being set up, that the ACORN workers as individuals, or the institution on the whole, have ever encountered persons in similar situations, or have offered to help circumvent the law in similar ways prior.

Now, it seems to you, perhaps, that if these ACORN folks did this while being secretly videotaped, there is a probability that they did so with other folks and are therefore corrupt. But the argument should be held to a legal standard (since we're talking about violations of the law here). With that in mind, can you demonstrate either that (1) this level of corruption happened in other situations where the ACORN workers were not set up by persons interested in maligning and bringing down the organization, and (2) if you can't prove #1, can you at least get on the other side of a "reasonable doubt" standard to demonstrate that ACORN has done this?

Now, I know that grassroots social activism that isn't instigated by the media elite like Glenn Beck, and primarily involves nonwhites ain't exactly your cup of tea or America's cup of tea. But if you want to malign the institution of ACORN on the whole, you're going to have to proffer more than circumstantial evidence of them being set up by right wingers who have a vested interest in destroying the group. And I truly doubt you can muster up a compelling argument to defeat ACORN in this case. Not because you don't have it in you, but because it simply isn't there.

Shorter version of my argument:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfL4S5nI3Kw
 
[quote name='SpazX']I thought ACORN was racist too though? At least you know now that they'll give a white guy a loan.[/QUOTE]

mccainacorn.jpg
 
So far all I have learned in this thread is that some people now consider libertarian positions as "Right Wing"?

Boy has this country "Progressed..."
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']So far all I have learned in this thread is that some people now consider libertarian positions as "Right Wing"?

Boy has this country "Progressed..."[/QUOTE]

The Libertarian Party is basically a fringe party that sure as hell doesn't fit in with the Democrats does it?

I love how the woman was quoted as saying, "I could tell you not to do it but you wouldn't listen anyway." It's the same kind of conversation a parent has with a petulant child. "I know you're not going to stop using X, so here's a testing kit so you don't rot your brains out with rat poison."
 
I guess I don't equate libertarian thinking with the libertarian party much. Either way, neither of the above like the Republican party, which is usually the definition of 'Right wing', or so I thought.

The difference is, Right Wing often legislate and make decisions for everyone from a more authoritarian and sometimes religiously authoritarian point of view. Libertarianism is the opposite of that, they want you to do whatever the hell you want for the most part, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else (which I consider more of a liberal point of view.)

The only thing the Right Wing and Libertarianism have in common, imo, is the belief in small government.

Liberalism has more in common with Anarchy, imo, and Anarchy isn't a right-wing philosophy, imo.
 
[quote name='depascal22']The Libertarian Party is basically a fringe party that sure as hell doesn't fit in with the Democrats does it?[/quote]
I find it funny that the people who founded the Democratic party would today be called right-wingers.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I guess I don't equate libertarian thinking with the libertarian party much. Either way, neither of the above like the Republican party, which is usually the definition of 'Right wing', or so I thought.

The difference is, Right Wing often legislate and make decisions for everyone from a more authoritarian and sometimes religiously authoritarian point of view. Libertarianism is the opposite of that, they want you to do whatever the hell you want for the most part, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else (which I consider more of a liberal point of view.)

The only thing the Right Wing and Libertarianism have in common, imo, is the belief in small government.

Liberalism has more in common with Anarchy, imo, and Anarchy isn't a right-wing philosophy, imo.[/QUOTE]

This post is really full of "buh-buh-buh-HUH?!?!?!"
 
[quote name='depascal22']The Libertarian Party is basically a fringe party that sure as hell doesn't fit in with the Democrats does it?[/QUOTE]

I missed that part where we're required to only have a two-party system...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I missed that part where we're required to only have a two-party system...[/QUOTE]

I missed the part where you had a solution for a viable third party. Again, you have alot of grand ideals and no solutions.
 
[quote name='depascal22']I missed the part where you had a solution for a viable third party. Again, you have alot of grand ideals and no solutions.[/QUOTE]

Because your ideas have been proven to work out so well.

Oh, wait... they haven't.
 
My big cause right now is health care reform. It may cost alot but it's possible. Every American can finally get coverage regardless of ability to pay or pre-existing conditions. What else have I proposed that's impossible?

You want to completely reform government, business, and everyday life without any sort of way to do it. You would rather poo poo on real reform.
 
My ideas aren't impossible. Just improbable. Much like the idea that fat people are suddenly going to realize that being fat is bad. And care about it. Enough to change their lifestyle in a positive way.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']My ideas aren't impossible. Just improbable. Much like the idea that fat people are suddenly going to realize that being fat is bad. And care about it. Enough to change their lifestyle in a positive way.[/QUOTE]

Exactly, that's why it's not a bad idea to start taxing sugary drinks and fast food. Use money instead of common sense and all the idiots start caring and thinking about what they shove in their pie hole.

Your ideas are impossible. Americans will never vote for a third party en masse. You can never lower wages enough to convince people to buy American. What else have you pulled out your ass in the last couple hours?
 
I don't think you understand a damn thing. Come up with real ideas that could possibly come to fruit in our lifetime. One thing. Anything.

Let's go over your last few ideas.

We should completely overhaul our currency, banking, and commercial sectors to make everything go down in price therefore enticing Americans to buy locally.

Government option health care is bad because it adds trillions to the debt. It doesn't matter that a stupendous number of Americans are going bankrupt because of medical bills. According to this logic, it's OK for individuals to be up shit creek without a paddle but somehow our federal government must be so fiscally responsible that it can't provide basic humane services to the population.

Anything else?
 
So, basically, I should only work to promote goals that can be obtained in my lifetime? Who cares about the future of this country beyond my life?
 
Health care reform is right in front of us. Why not come up with a logical alternative to get millions of uncovered Americans out of trouble?

How about we come up with ways to make America energy independent? I've got an idea. How about the government help every property owner put solar panels on their houses/buildings? See how that works? It's something that's possible and will actually benefit all Americans. It's not some crackpt idea that will only benefit a very small group of ideological pure morons.

Think of something that has actual application in the world and not in some imagination land.
 
depascal - Do you honestly believe that the health care reform either proposed by a single Democrat or the health care reform that will eventually get passed will "get millions of uncovered Americans out of trouble"?

If so, how long do you propose we let this experiment last before we can accurately judge if it has helped "millions of Americans"?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']If so, how long do you propose we let this experiment last before we can accurately judge if it has helped "millions of Americans"?[/QUOTE]

'Bout 5 to 10 years.
 
[quote name='Msut77']'Bout 5 to 10 years.[/QUOTE]

I'll assume your answer lines up with depascal's. If not, DP, please give your own reply.

And how do you propose we judge if this health care reform has helped "Millions of Americans"?
 
I think we can let it go on as long as we've let the experiment of Social Security and Medicare go on. Both are imperfect programs but they've allowed our seniors to at least have some shred of dignity after they retire.

This isn't about completely fixing the problem. Republicans (and even Democrats) won't let that happen. But something must be done.

Again, stop crapping all over reform without coming up an alternative. Or are you saying that there is absolutely nothing that has to be reformed in the health care sector?

We'll judge if it works if less people go into bankruptcy court with a stack of medical bills. It's pretty simple.
 
And how do you propose we judge if this health care reform has helped "Millions of Americans"?
Click to expand...

Surveys for one, for things like patient and doctor satisfaction.

Detailed information on mortality and disease etc. is made anyway and ten years would be enough to least get an idea of progress.

This isn't exactly virgin territory Bob, lots of countries made the switch, some of them not all that long ago.

Even if there are problems they can tweaked.
 
[quote name='depascal22']I think we can let it go on as long as we've let the experiment of Social Security and Medicare go on. Both are imperfect programs but they've allowed our seniors to at least have some shred of dignity after they retire.

This isn't about completely fixing the problem. Republicans (and even Democrats) won't let that happen. But something must be done.

Again, stop crapping all over reform without coming up an alternative. Or are you saying that there is absolutely nothing that has to be reformed in the health care sector?

We'll judge if it works if less people go into bankruptcy court with a stack of medical bills. It's pretty simple.[/QUOTE]

Your plan to judge if it works isn't very good. Just because people aren't filing bankruptcy due to medical bills, it doesn't mean their health care has improved. Hell, if the health care reform manages to screw the system over so badly that a significant group of people can't get health care - and die - then they aren't going to end up filing bankruptcy! Yay, the system is fixed better!

Social Security... Wonder how much longer that's going to even last.

As for the idea of "stop crapping on reform without an alternative" - that's bull and you know it. Just because I can see something bad coming from a mile away, it doesn't mean I should just shut up if I can't come up with something better. Besides, I'm not a politician. I'm not out there trying to force reform (of any kind) down the throats of others.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Surveys for one, for things like patient and doctor satisfaction.

Detailed information on mortality and disease etc. is made anyway and ten years would be enough to least get an idea of progress.

This isn't exactly virgin territory Bob, lots of countries made the switch, some of them not all that long ago.

Even if there are problems they can tweaked.[/QUOTE]

Surveys won't work. Surveys show the majority of Americans aren't pleased with the Democratic plans. Surveys show that a majority of patients are satisfied with their care. But we're supposed to ignore the surveys. They're biased. And the American people are stupid and don't know what's good for them.

"Detailed information on mortality and disease." That's good. That's something quantifiable. Expand on that.

If problems "can be tweaked", why the need for such a massive overhaul of the current system?
Why? Because some problems cannot be "tweaked."
 
I'd combine the bankruptcies with health care surveys by patients AND the care givers.

And to answer your question, I did manage to finish the bill. I find it much easier to debate an issue that I'm informed on. It's easier to sniff out the bull shitters.

I'll expand on the mortality and disease information. It's very simple. Can we up the percentages of people that find out they have colon cancer in the early stages when it's easier to survive. As of now, people without insurance aren't getting colonoscopies and don't go in to the ER until they have "blood diarrhea". I've seen it and it's not pretty. You basically tell the person to get their will and estate in order because there isn't a damn thing we can do. Could that person have survived with an early diagnosis? Possibly. Did he survive by just waiting? Definately not. One example of how reform can save lives but you'll never be passionate about it until blood runs from your asshole like a fountain.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Surveys won't work.[/quote]

They work better than nothing.

Which is what you got.

"Detailed information on mortality and disease." That's good. That's something quantifiable. Expand on that.
Click to expand...

It is pretty self explanatory Bob if you don't get it now no amount of hand holding will help you get it.

If problems "can be tweaked", why the need for such a massive overhaul of the current system?
Click to expand...

Because our system now puts profits above people.

Once the basic frame work is in place any fixes are relatively minor.
 
[quote name='depascal22']I'll expand on the mortality and disease information. It's very simple. Can we up the percentages of people that find out they have colon cancer in the early stages when it's easier to survive.[/QUOTE]

Good, good. Now we're getting somewhere.

By the way, if you honestly did manage to read the bill, congrats. You're better than some of our congressmen who won't read it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACbwND52rrw

Did you have your two lawyers with you when you read it to help you understand it?
 
[quote name='Msut77']Because our system now puts profits above people.[/QUOTE]

You think the "new" system won't do that same thing? Profit (either in the terms of money or political power) will still be a driving force, even after this bill is passed. No amount of tweaking will change human nature.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You think the "new" system won't do that same thing?[/QUOTE]

That is how it went down in countries that have enacted universal health care systems Bob.
 
I'm done arguing this Bob. Read the bill, take a class in health care management, and then come back to argue. Until then, you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.
 
[quote name='Msut77']That is how it went down in countries that have enacted universal health care systems Bob.[/QUOTE]

As depascal says, things work differently here in America. What makes you think health care is some almighty, untainted industry?
 
[quote name='depascal22']I'm done arguing this Bob. Read the bill, take a class in health care management, and then come back to argue. Until then, you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.[/QUOTE]

So... that's a no, you didn't have two lawyers with you to help you read the bill? :)
 
[quote name='UncleBob']As depascal says, things work differently here in America. What makes you think health care is some almighty, untainted industry?[/QUOTE]

Well gee Bob, you may wish to say Americans are just too fucking dumb to have a working health care system.

But then I would just remind you to speak for yourself.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Well gee Bob, you may wish to say Americans are just too fucking dumb to have a working health care system.

But then I would just remind you to speak for yourself.[/QUOTE]

Again with the insults...
 
Why the fuck does it matter if I had two lawyers with me when I read the bill. I can look things up if I don't understand them. It's called research.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Again with the insults...[/QUOTE]

No insult there.

Now run along and devise another spectacularly inane non-question.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']:rofl:

The politicians on the right are afraid of plebeians without money and without a deep vested position in the power elite (or maintaining the power elite) will actually begin to develop and have a say in the way our country is run. This is why ACORN will suffer the same fate as Move On, as the SEIU, as the AFL-CIO, and as all other organizations that represent progressive ideas that help working class people regain some of the power and wealth that's been seized by the elites in this country.

It is why someone who says "I was a communist then," when referring to their college years, is denied a position they were qualified for, and why a person from an elitist family who had a coke problem as that same time in their lives was elected to two terms as president despite genuine abuses of power and potential war crimes during the first term.

A black man who says he was a communist 16 years prior is more dangerous than any white man who was intellectually inept and could not keep himself from violating criminal laws regarding drug use.

It is also why ACORN is being entrapped by members of the right, and the few cases where they discover persons foolish enough to fall for their entrapment become a proxy for lambasting the entire party...yet Erik Prince, whose corporation of private military contractors violates criminal laws, international laws, and is also potentially under investigation for fulfilling murder contracts from Prince himself, remains free, and has, in fact, received additional contracts under the Obama administration.

ACORN = evil.

Xe, or Blackwater, or whatever they are this week = defenders of our freedom.

Prince will never face charges, he will continue to make money hand over fist for murdering people and behaving with reckless abandon, as if he and his company were above the law...because they are.

And ACORN will cease to exist, and in a few years we'll have a few dozen more black people behind bars. Because of entrapment.[/QUOTE]

Ahh the dangers of overeducation. See kids, you stay in the classroom, hold court over a bunch of naive liberal arts boozers and stoners, and write papers on minutia all your life, pretty soon you can't see the problem with funding prostitution by using taxpayer money because you see racism and classism everywhere.

It's fucking ridiculous Myke. DC, Baltimore, and now NYC. Don't fund organized crime - not exactly rocket science.

As far as conspiracy theories go, I think your theory about Xe mercs propping up a power elite is interesting and more plausable then anything that ever came out of Glen Becks mouth. But it really has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.
 
Just an FYI, supposedly these undercover journalists have more to show which will debut on Beck today, and supposedly it's by far the worst sting yet.
 
Oh, it wasn't that bad. This one just has an Acorn employee admitting to murdering her husband and giving reasons why it's ok to import child sex slaves among other things. It's just the same old politics of the past, as Myke and every one else who is somehow defending Acorn here would say. I'm sure it's all being taken out of context, just like the other 3 separate incidents were.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top