ACORN'S HOUSING-RIGHTS HUSTLERS

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by DanaC

It's not about length of membership. Well...maybe a little, but only inasmuch as, with someone who has been here longer we're more likely to have formed a 'reliable' opinion on their character. Having spent a few years getting to know Lookout, I feel fairly confident in suggesting that one of his character traits is scrupulous honesty.

I'm not suggesting lookout isn't honest. I'm just suggesting that some of you are being a bit unreasonable in expecting someone with no experience of him to just 'take his word for it'.

Sure lo can express his opinion, and if that's what it is, then there's no need to say any more, but just like everyone else, if he's asked for some kind of cite and refuses, then his statement can only be considered an opinion.

Does that make sense?

Classic, I'm really surprised at your responses. I would have thought you of all people would be a bit more reasonable.

Perhaps a little more perspective is in order.

Lookout is outraged by lobbyists:

"Lobbyists rank just below child rapists in my book....Individuals who choose to make their living attempting to buy politicians in a legal manner are human fucksticks who I rate just below child rapists on the scale of asshattery."

I agree with him about the influence of big money lobbyists (though not to point of characterizing them as lower than child rapists) and the need for lobbying reform.

Consider the expenditures on lobbying by the industry groups in question:

Mortgage bankers and brokers - $30 million in lobbying expenditures '08

Securities & Investment - $92 million in lobbying expenditures in '08

ACORN's lobbying expenditures are too low to show in these Open Secret reports based on lobbying disclosure requirements which must be reported to the US House and Senate

The top ranked industry sector for lobbying expenditures over the last 10 years:
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate - over $3.4 billion

So who should lookout really be bitching about? His own industry or ACORN?

Classic is concerned about ACORN'S impact on elections:

"what politician is going to challenge an organization like ACORN during an election year? They have to be nuts too."

Consider campaign contributions to candidates:

Finance, Insurance & Real Estate (including commercial banks, finance/credit companies, securites and investment companies) which contributed $62 million to federal candidates in '08 as reported to the Federal Election Commission.

ACORN doesnt have a PAC or contribute to candidates.

Who do you think might have greater influence on the candidates and members of Congress once they are elected?

And as I noted and Classic acknowledged...I said I was a former lobbyist and never spent a dime on an elected official, nor did the organization I worked for have a PAC...and I have never had any affiliation with ACORN.

[DanaC]

Oh I totally disagree with Lookout's assessment of lobbysists. They're just doing their job: some good, some bad, some useful, some damaging.

However, I believe his description of the events he himself witnessed. He was asked to cite, but what exactly is he supposed to cite? He was describing his personal experience of ACORN's methods. I believe that. Whether that can then be extrapolated out to a more general sense of ACORN is debatable.

For the most part in this thread, I agree with Redux. But, whilst I don't agree with Lookout, I absolutely believe his description of events he himself was a part of, or at least his perspective on them. Because he was describing such events, calls to cite aren't questioning his sources, they're questioning his personal honesty and integrity.

If I say I read somewhere that a group have acted in a particular way, then calls for citation are merely that. If I say I witnessed something myself, then calls for citation are an attack on my honesty.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

However, I believe his description of the events he himself witnessed. He was asked to cite, but what exactly is he supposed to cite? He was describing his personal experience of ACORN's methods. I believe that. Whether that can then be extrapolated out to a more general sense of ACORN is debatable.

...I absolutely believe his description of events he himself was a part of, or at least his perspective on them. Because he was describing such events, calls to cite aren't questioning his sources, they're questioning his personal honesty and integrity.

If I say I read somewhere that a group have acted in a particular way, then calls for citation are merely that. If I say I witnessed something myself, then calls for citation are an attack on my honesty.

What one sees, and more importantly, how one presents that to others, may often be influenced by one's pre-conceived biases.....its only human. I readily admit to such biases.

One's perspective is often colored by one's biases.

Originally Posted by lookout123

....even I couldn't specifically prove that the events I witnessed were part of a formal ACORN business plan. That would be illegal. They are very good at keeping themselves out of trouble by using the rogue rep ploy.

You see honesty in his perspective of ACORN's "they are very good....rogue rep ploy" where I see an opinion (of someone who apparently doesnt like ACORN) that may reflect his bias. I dont doubt that he believes it to be honest.

We have an honest difference of opinion, not of what he saw, but how he characterized what he didnt see (they are very good at keeping themselves out of trouble by using the rogue rep ploy).

[classicman]

FWIW, Acorn is being investigated by the FBI.
I'm sure this will just disappear.

[TheMercenary]

Heh.

Originally Posted by classicman

FWIW, Acorn is being investigated by the FBI.
I'm sure this will just disappear.

Yep..I believe it did disappear, but I dont know that for a fact.

The last I read was that after a preliminary review of allegations made by a few republican partisans during the campaign, the FBI did not proceed with any investigations of ACORN...or at least ACORN has not been informed of the fact they are under investigation and asked to provide access to their records, which would have been standard procedure for such an investigation.

Might the charges have been politically motivated? I'm not accusing, just suggesting the possibility.

Unless you have more recent information you can cite which might be difficult since its all based on one AP story attributed to "leaks" from within the FBI.

In any case, to reiterate, I'm not "one of them" as you had suggested earlier...

...but I do believe in innocent until proven guilty. How about you?

[Aliantha]

...but I do believe in innocent until proven guilty. How about you?

Oh no, we really like the whole idea of lynch mobs here at teh cellar!

[TheMercenary]

Let me get the rope.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

I'm not "one of them" as you had suggested earlier... but I do believe in innocent until proven guilty. How about you?

Thanks for clearing that up. Innocent until proven guilty? Hmm, that depends on how you want to squirm out of it.

ACORN has a long history of scandal. In the state of Missouri in 1986, 12 ACORN members were convicted of voter fraud.

In December 2004, in St. Louis, six volunteers pleaded guilty to dozens of election law violations for filling out registration cards with names of dead people and other bogus information. The volunteers worked for “Operation Big Vote” — a branch of ACORN — in St. Louis.

On February 10, 2005, Nonaresa Montgomery, a paid worker who ran Operation Big Vote during the run-up to the 2001 mayoral primary, was found guilty of vote fraud. Montgomery hired about 30 workers wrote out names and information from an outdated voter list. About 1,500 fraudulent voter registration cards were turned in.

In October 2006, St. Louis election officials discovered at least 1,492 “potentially fraudulent” voter registration cards. They were all turned in by ACORN volunteers.

In November 2006, 20,000 to 35,000 questionable voter registration forms were turned in by ACORN officials in Missouri. The workers admitted on camera that they were coached to tell registrants to vote for Democrat Claire McCaskill.

In 2007, in Kansas City, Missouri, four ACORN employees were indicted for fraud.

In April 2008 eight ACORN employees in St. Louis city and county pleaded guilty to federal election fraud for submitting bogus voter registrations.

Oh, and that was just Missouri.

Were all the individuals found guilty in all the cases - no.

From what I understand many times the individuals involved are charged, not ACORN or one of its subsidiaries or affiliates. By design, this allows them to maintain their innocence. Technically they are innocent by the letter of the law. They also maintain plausible deniability. These 'volunteers' get a wristslap if that, and being that they were probably students or have extremely liberal tendencies, the idea of provoking, or challenging the status-quo makes whatever penalties virtually irrelevant. In fact they may actually wear it as a badge of honor.

Is ACORN guilty? Perhaps, maybe its just a few hundred bad apples who went off on their own. Maybe they were just all overexuberant volunteers. Maybe not.


This is like the mafia, only much worse.

Originally Posted by classicman

Thanks for clearing that up. Innocent until proven guilty? Hmm, that depends on how you want to squirm out of it.

Were all the individuals found guilty in all the cases - no.

From what I understand many times the individuals involved are charged, not ACORN or one of its subsidiaries or affiliates. By design, this allows them to maintain their innocence. Technically they are innocent by the letter of the law. They also maintain plausible deniability. These 'volunteers' get a wristslap if that, and being that they were probably students or have extremely liberal tendencies, the idea of provoking, or challenging the status-quo makes whatever penalties virtually irrelevant. In fact they may actually wear it as a badge of honor.

Is ACORN guilty? Perhaps, maybe its just a few hundred bad apples who went off on their own. Maybe they were just all overexuberant volunteers. Maybe not.

This is like the mafia, only much worse.

LMAO.....a presumption of innocence is now "squirming out" of something.

ACORN and any organization is required by law to turn all all voter registrations any staff person collects....and indicate the ones that they believe may be questionable. Which, in every case, is what ACORN did and generally fired the questionable staff.

But. of course, you dont mention that.

The fact remains that ACORN has never been charged with criminal activity...either in voter registration or housing finance advocacy.

Perhaps its probably time for you to move on to the next boogeyman......the SOCIALISTS!!!!!

Those socialists now in control will make the mafia and ACORN look like choir boys.

[Aliantha]

Hey...socialists are largely misunderstood!

Don't be mean to the socialists.

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Hey...socialists are largely misunderstood!

Don't be mean to the socialists.

But they want to redistribute our wealth and control every aspect of our lives...Obama said it during the campaign! (insert youtube vid here as "proof")

Ask Joe the Plumber...or Classic the Mafia Hunter!

It must be true! Watch them "squirm" as they try to explain the facts!

They are "guilty" as charged by those patriotic Americans who dont like any organization that might support those among us who are the most disenfranchised.

[Aliantha]

and what's wrong with redistributing the wealth I ask you???