ACORN - Page 30

Clodfobble · 03-01-2010, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redux

Reading back over this thread, it certainly didnt stop you (or Merc or UT) from presuming guilt based on the edited version...or Republicans in Congress from using it for political purposes....so regardless of the verdict in this case, he accomplished what he intended.

Except for the part where classic was the one who posted the latest article indicating the tape was edited. But I'm sure it's more productive to bring up past posts instead. You argue like a chick.

03-01-2010, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Except for the part where classic was the one who posted the latest article indicating the tape was edited. But I'm sure it's more productive to bring up past posts instead. You argue like a chick.

Yeah..I just hate the presumption of guilt, rather than the reverse that flooded this discussion when the edited versions were released to the (mostly partisan) media. If you think innocent til proven guilty is a chick argument, thats cool with me.

I give Classicman credit for the latest post, but it doesnt change the past.

Clodfobble · 03-01-2010, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redux

I give Classicman credit for the latest post,

Sure, you do now.

03-01-2010, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Sure, you do now.

You're right. I should have said it right off...and I could have even acknowledged that he posted earlier that it was shoddy journalism as well....all the while still presuming guilt.

And IMO, in his latest post, he should have said that maybe he jumped the gun in his earlier posts.

added:
foods I am embarrassed to like -- I am generally a healthy eater, but I do go on deep fried binges on occasion. Does that give me more credibility?

Undertoad · 03-01-2010, 10:12 PM

No editing I saw could possibly explain why ACORN workers were explaining in detail how to house Salvadorean child prostitutes. No tricky cuts, one didn't need to be led to a conclusion, no playing with timing between scene A and scene B could explain why ACORN workers were providing tips on how to hide income from child prostitution. It is indefensible behavior, and I don't think you should be playing D on this one.

03-01-2010, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad

No editing I saw could possibly explain why ACORN workers were explaining in detail how to house Salvadorean child prostitutes. No tricky cuts, one didn't need to be led to a conclusion, no playing with timing between scene A and scene B could explain why ACORN workers were providing tips on how to hide income from child prostitution. It is indefensible behavior, and I don't think you should be playing D on this one.

Have you seen the unedited versions? I havent.

Doesnt the fact that they were withheld offer a reasonable question that they may not tell the same story?

I am not defending the words or actions of the ACORN employees, just the fact that guilty until proven innocent is not the way to judge.

classicman · 03-01-2010, 10:46 PM

Which party does the AG belong to. . .

Quote:

Hynes, a Democrat

might that be a reason - Nahhhhhhhhhhhh
They were just all trying to do whats right.

Oh wait, then again, perhaps the reason they unedited tapes weren't shown is because they still look guilty as hell.
Nope I haven't seen the unedited ones. No, I don't know if they are guilty or not. Do they appear guilty as hell? YES!!
I cannot fathom how the decision was made that there was nothing illegal done. I will say this, it took the lawyers four months to figure a way out of what appears to be a very compromising situation.

I look forward to the cases as well, perhaps then we'll see the whole tapes.

Undertoad · 03-01-2010, 10:47 PM

No. I've seen a lot of "editing to create a story" - and this wasn't that. This was 4 minute long flat scenes where they asked how to cover up underage Salvadorean sex slaves and ACORN workers gave them tips. No tricky cuts, one didn't need to be led to a conclusion, no playing with timing between scene A and scene B. It was very straightforward -- and that's why it was devastating.

jinx · 03-01-2010, 10:56 PM

Unethical isn't always illegal.

xoxoxoBruce · 03-01-2010, 11:22 PM

Yeah, that was my question. It was reprehensible behavior, but is it illegal?

xoxoxoBruce · 03-02-2010, 12:01 AM

To possiblities is not simple.
The answer to this question;

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

It was reprehensible behavior, but is it illegal?

settles it.

03-01-2010, 11:28 PM

The broader issue was how the act of taping the employees was used against the organization...by intent? and w/o any suggestion that the words or actions of the employees represented any institutional policy as opposed to extremely poor judgment or even unethical behavior on the part of the employee.

The "reporter" was not out to get employees..he was out to get ACORN.

xoxoxoBruce · 03-01-2010, 11:31 PM

But is it illegal?

03-01-2010, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

But is it illegal?

The DA thought there was not...but then what follows is questioning the impartiality of the DA.

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman

Which party does the AG belong to. . . might that be a reason - Nahhhhhhhhhhhh
They were just all trying to do whats right.

Again, leaving one to having to "prove a negative"....having to prove the DA was NOT biased or acted politically, rather than proving he did.

xoxoxoBruce · 03-01-2010, 11:38 PM

That's why Jinx and I asked if it was illegal... duh.

03-01-2010, 10:56 PM	#9
jinx Come on, cat. Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: general vicinity of Philadelphia area Posts: 7,013	Unethical isn't always illegal. __________________ Crying won't help you, praying won't do you no good.

03-01-2010, 11:22 PM	#10
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	Yeah, that was my question. It was reprehensible behavior, but is it illegal? __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

03-01-2010, 11:31 PM	#13
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	But is it illegal? __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

03-01-2010, 11:38 PM	#15
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	That's why Jinx and I asked if it was illegal... duh. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

03-01-2010, 10:12 PM	#5
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	No editing I saw could possibly explain why ACORN workers were explaining in detail how to house Salvadorean child prostitutes. No tricky cuts, one didn't need to be led to a conclusion, no playing with timing between scene A and scene B could explain why ACORN workers were providing tips on how to hide income from child prostitution. It is indefensible behavior, and I don't think you should be playing D on this one.

03-01-2010, 10:47 PM	#8
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	No. I've seen a lot of "editing to create a story" - and this wasn't that. This was 4 minute long flat scenes where they asked how to cover up underage Salvadorean sex slaves and ACORN workers gave them tips. No tricky cuts, one didn't need to be led to a conclusion, no playing with timing between scene A and scene B. It was very straightforward -- and that's why it was devastating.

03-01-2010, 11:28 PM	#12
Redux Guest Posts: n/a	The broader issue was how the act of taping the employees was used against the organization...by intent? and w/o any suggestion that the words or actions of the employees represented any institutional policy as opposed to extremely poor judgment or even unethical behavior on the part of the employee. The "reporter" was not out to get employees..he was out to get ACORN.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)