ACORN [Archive] - Quarter To Three Forums

MarinusWA

09-16-2009, 10:49 AM

I can't say I was surprised by this. Community work at the lowest levels often does things that are barely legal at best. For the most part these people are just looking at ways to get their job done with the least amount of hassle cause ultimately that's what they are there for. This often means bypassing the red tape which is the law.

It ain't pretty but what are you going to do about it? I'm betting an awful lot of people making use of a service like this are involved in some kind of illegal activity to make a buck.

Ignoring the underage prostitution did cross the line though.

WarrenM

09-16-2009, 11:04 AM

Ignoring the underage prostitution did cross the line though.
Yeah, when she started talking about filing them as dependents, I was in full face palm.

AndrewM

09-16-2009, 11:20 AM

I am amused that the inspiration for this particular branch of conservative activism appears to be Borat.

I mean sheesh (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,550562,00.html): ""We're bringing these girls from overseas, but we are going to take a cut of the profit and intend to use the profit from the tricks the girls perform to fund my political campaign and the advertising," O'Keefe tells Kaelke, adding that it'll fund at least 50 percent of his planned run as a Democratic congressional candidate."

This is the person who was videotaped's "defense": " "They were clearly playing with me. I decided to shock them as much as they were shocking me ... saying the most outrageous things with a straight face.”"

Yeah, good strategy there... I knew he was an undercover cop, so I decided to play along and ask for 700 pounds of heroin!

Anti-Bunny

09-16-2009, 11:22 AM

Why is this not posted on youtube yet?

AndrewM

09-16-2009, 11:26 AM

Why is this not posted on youtube yet?

The article I linked has links to the videos, I think, though they aren't on youtube. I haven't tried them myself.

Huzurdaddi

09-16-2009, 11:31 AM

This often means bypassing the red tape which is the law.

WTF is this apologetic bullshit?

RLMullen

09-16-2009, 12:25 PM

Why is this not posted on youtube yet?

So you guys really do get your news from Comedy Central??

You'll be shocked when you find out that Fox has been running with this story for about two weeks.

ACORN Announces Reforms After 'Pimp,' 'Prostitute' Videos (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,550941,00.html)
ACORN seems to think this is serious, so it's not "your normal FAUXNEWS".

ABC's Gibson: ACORN Scandal a Mystery to Me (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,550605,00.html)
But Gibson told a radio show Tuesday morning that he wasn't familiar with the story — and it might be "just one you leave to the cables."
Really? What happened to 20/20? They used to salivate over this kind of shit. Hell between "60 Minutes" and "20/20" they basically created the 'hidden camera hit piece'.

News Outlets Largely Ignoring ACORN Scandal, Critics Say (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,550602,00.html)

I'm not going to defend FOX News...especially on this site. In fact logic would dictate that this story only being covered by FOX and ignored by every single other news outlet would lend support to the common claims made against FOX. Add the Van Jones hit piece and you've got plenty of evidence of FOX creating news out of thin air. This logic would work up until the point that you realize the stories are true. Not only are they true, but they are prompting resignations, firings, congressional action, and action from federal agencies. When the federal government reacts within a 2 week time frame, then it is usually an indication that the smoke you see is indeed caused by a fire.

Carry on with the normal FOX bashing, because there is plenty to bash. I'd advise against ignoring them though because it appears that the other news outlets aren't doing the job we all thought they were doing... and some of them are now engaged in deliberately ignoring news stories that don't fit their "agenda", whatever that agenda may be.

MarinusWA

09-16-2009, 12:28 PM

WTF is this apologetic bullshit?
This has NOTHING to do with apologizing for it. Something like this isn't a priority for anyone (at least not until the media's 'outrage of the day' searchlight gets aimed at it). The social workers don't care because calling the cops every time some smuck starts talking about his 'side business' means they get nothing done. The cops don't care because it's a huge trickle of small crime they don't have the time nor resources to deal with. Hell, the IRS doesn't care because at least now they see some revenue from illegal money where before they saw none (if I understand correctly what Acorn does). And finally politicians are too busy congratulating themselves about how they are fighting "insert ailment of society here" through these amazing programs.

Bottom line, nobody either cares or has the resources to do something about it

In a perfect society such things shouldn't happen. But perfect societies don't exist. This is how it works and how it will continue to work for decades to come.

Aleck

09-16-2009, 12:34 PM

As a left of center moderate, my response is: what the fuck? Fire those fuckers ASAP, ACORN, and make it clear that kind of shit isn't to be tolerated. The alternative: stop taking public money.

Good lord.

DOH: looks like others got to it first.

snowcrash22

09-16-2009, 12:43 PM

ACORN's response (http://www.newshounds.us/2009/09/16/fox_news_punked_by_acorn.php): We did it all for the lulz

"They were not believable", said Ms. Kaelke of the two actors. "Somewhat entertaining, but they weren't even good actors. I didn't know what to make of them. They were clearly playing with me. I decided to shock them as much as they were shocking me. Like Stephen Colbert does – saying the most outrageous things with a straightface." While her sense of humor might not be funny to many people, the fact is that she spun false scenario afterfalse scenario and the videographer ate them up.

Actual link to ACORN's response in the fifth paragraph of the Newhounds article. My tinyurl-fu is weak.

Huzurdaddi

09-16-2009, 01:44 PM

The social workers don't care because calling the cops every time some smuck starts talking about his 'side business' means they get nothing done.

This is not about calling the cops. This is about giving advice which is outside the law.

Had they simply said: "we can not talk about that, we can he you with other problems but we can not address that" or something similar there would have been no story.

Do not try to defend this shit in any way. They could not have been more wrong.

Skipper

09-16-2009, 01:50 PM

I'd advise against ignoring them though because it appears that the other news outlets aren't doing the job we all thought they were doing... and some of them are now engaged in deliberately ignoring news stories that don't fit their "agenda", whatever that agenda may be.

CNN has had it on their page for a while (just checked) now it's slipped off the front page. It was there the day of the report though. NPR has also run stories on it more than once, with a long in depth story yesterday to be exact.

It's not being ignored I don't think. It's especially not being ignored by government organizations who last Friday stripped ACORN of it's work with the Census Bureau and Monday seized all funding going to the organization in an overwhelming senate vote.

ACORN has had this slide a long time coming. It's gotten progressively worse, both being run internally, being legitimate in spending and accounting, and in it's mission.

The fact that this thread showed up late I attribute more to people just wanting to be done with the organization completely, similar to most people who once supported it.

Jazar

09-16-2009, 01:54 PM

Unless there's some proof that these "accomodations" are sanctioned/condoned from the higher ups I'm not seeing the huge scandal. Just some employees being grossly unethical.

Kraaze

09-16-2009, 02:03 PM

Unless there's some proof that these "accomodations" are sanctioned/condoned from the higher ups I'm not seeing the huge scandal. Just some employees being grossly unethical.

I think a deeper look than that is required. It's easy to set up a culture and structure that turns a blind eye towards certain things without ever explicitly sanctioning them. I don't know how ACORN works organizationally but it sounds like there needs to be some questions at that level to see if this really was an aberration or if their structure is conducive to creating this type of situation.

Anti-Bunny

09-16-2009, 03:49 PM

So you guys really do get your news from Comedy Central??

No, I've been following this story since it broke on the blogs, but I wanted to see Jon's take on it. I can't watch CC's videos on my smartphone.

Huzurdaddi

09-16-2009, 04:25 PM

You'll be shocked when you find out that Fox has been running with this story for about two weeks.

Yep two weeks. Sure, the two links you posted are from the 15th and the 16th but that is just like a week. And sure, Wikipedia says that the story was broken on September 9th, but that is even more than two weeks, or something.

milo

09-16-2009, 04:26 PM

I heard it was about 1.8 million weeks, actually.

Dave47

09-16-2009, 06:04 PM

Carry on with the normal FOX bashing, because there is plenty to bash. I'd advise against ignoring them though because it appears that the other news outlets aren't doing the job we all thought they were doing... and some of them are now engaged in deliberately ignoring news stories that don't fit their "agenda", whatever that agenda may be.
According to a segment on CNN earlier today, the two activists who filmed the videos have refused to talk to CNN reporters about the story. If this is true across all non-Fox news media, I think it goes a long way in explaining the delay in coverage.

Pogo

09-16-2009, 06:18 PM

Point for the red team.

White House cuts ACORN from the census collection. Good riddance. ACORN was a thorn in Obama's side since the election.

HighPlainsDrifter

09-16-2009, 08:53 PM

I was considering starting a thread on this yesterday since I didn't see any. But I figured I somehow missed it because this story's been going on a while and I couldn't believe the well informed members of P&R didn't already know everything about it. Guess if it's not talked about on KOS it never happened. ;)

It's a bit surprising none of the big media crowd found this story first, and it's absolutely amazing how long so many have ignored it since it first broke.

antifood

09-17-2009, 05:17 AM

Looks like she really was missing with the kids. (http://mediamatters.org/press/releases/200909160021)

Robert Sharp

09-17-2009, 05:35 AM

OK, I can believe that she was fucking with the actors, but it was a big mistake. ACORN is a controversial organization right now, and everyone there has to know that. You can't just give FuxNews an obvious way to make you look even worse. That's just silly.

antifood

09-17-2009, 05:56 AM

How could you not want to seriously fuck with this kid?

http://www.mediaite.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/fandf_9-14.jpg

BostonBum0

09-17-2009, 06:10 AM

Aren't there laws that prohibit news outlets from not telling the whole story? I understand how Beck gets away with it being an opinion piece, or whatever, but doesn't Fox News have a legitimate news segment for, like, 30 minutes, or something?

Eric T Cheng

09-17-2009, 06:11 AM

antifood

09-17-2009, 06:54 AM

It will be interesting to see the results of the independent audit.

Jakub

09-17-2009, 06:57 AM

AndrewM

09-17-2009, 06:59 AM

Looks like she really was missing with the kids. (http://mediamatters.org/press/releases/200909160021)

Haha. Oh man. This whole saga is definitely the funniest story of the month.

antifood

09-17-2009, 07:07 AM

The thing to take note is, that they did this all over the country. I just wonder if he was dressed up in his "pimp" custom for all of the tapings. If he was, I can't imagine anyone taking him seriously.

Brian Seiler

09-17-2009, 07:09 AM

Sooooo.....wait. Their position is that instead of telling the jackass kid from Australia to take off his sunglasses and apologize to his parents and neighbors, they all, to a man, decided to play along with his shtick? Isn't that kind of like when you're trying to impress people you don't know with the tricks your dog can do and he only wants to sit in the corner and lick his balls and you pretend that that's the trick you taught him?

AndrewM

09-17-2009, 07:13 AM

Sooooo.....wait. Their position is that instead of telling the jackass kid from Australia to take off his sunglasses and apologize to his parents and neighbors, they all, to a man, decided to play along with his shtick?

No, he did this stunt at around a dozen places. Most of them just kicked him out.

I was skeptical of the ACORN people's claims they were just messing with him, but the murder thing does suggest there is some truth to that, in at least one occasion. Even if it is true in all of these cases, it was pretty stupid. Especially for these people who didn't just make some absurd claim that was easily verified to be false, like the murder thing.

James Gutierrez

09-17-2009, 07:15 AM

Sooooo.....wait. Their position is that instead of telling the jackass kid from Australia to take off his sunglasses and apologize to his parents and neighbors, they all, to a man, decided to play along with his shtick?
I find the "we were just playing along" defense a bit suspect, but it doesn't require the assertion that they all played along. There's a selection bias here.

antifood

09-17-2009, 07:22 AM

Sooooo.....wait. Their position is that instead of telling the jackass kid from Australia to take off his sunglasses and apologize to his parents and neighbors, they all, to a man, decided to play along with his shtick?

They were booted out of multiple office locations. The footage we are seeing are cuts from a summers worth of footage. If he was dressed up in a Halloween custom for every interview, which he has already admitted to, I can't see how anyone could take him seriously. Would you? It's irrational optimism to think your deduction would be any better than those office workers. How you would deal with it is a different matter.

Clearly, they should have been thrown out immediately. I do agree that the footage warrants an independent investigation.

Brian Seiler

09-17-2009, 07:33 AM

Would you?

I'm not sure I can answer that question, because there's a lot of actual, real humans that I wouldn't take seriously at first blush. I'm simply pointing out that the whole "JUST KIDDING LOL" response seems....perhaps a touch post hoc.

antifood

09-17-2009, 07:38 AM

I'm not sure I can answer that question, because there's a lot of actual, real humans that I wouldn't take seriously at first blush. I'm simply pointing out that the whole "JUST KIDDING LOL" response seems....perhaps a touch post hoc.

My hope is that ACORN would screen out people that would seriously discuss child trafficking. My bias is that skinny white boys in fake fur coats are trying to play Sasha Cohen.

Bad judgement was shown, we will see just how bad it was.

Brian Seiler

09-17-2009, 07:45 AM

My bias is that skinny white boys in fake fur coats are trying to play Sasha Cohen.

Corey Delaney (http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=jGd&q=corey+delaney&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=dkqySucGjMq2B5XPwb4O&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4) is an actual person.

I'm just saying. It might be hard to believe, or even to justify, but he does, in fact, exist, and when I saw this idiot in his Alabaster Jones getup, I thought, oh - another one of THOSE morons. Maybe I watch too much of The Soup to have an entirely realistic picture of the universe.

Either way, cry for society.

Ben Sones

09-17-2009, 07:52 AM

Actually, the more information I see on this whole affair, the more believable the "playing along" claim becomes. The costume--and the kid wearing it--were utterly absurd. The idea that anyone would take them seriously is a bit hard to swallow. The idea that every ACORN worker they ambushed would play along is also hard to swallow... but of course that's not actually what happened. As antifood points out, most of their encounters resulted in them being tossed out the door. Fox is only showing the encounters that went somewhere, and the conclusion that they want us make is that the ACORN workers in those encounters totally bought the act, and were taking the absurd pimp guy seriously.

The problem is, his shtick is so absurdly over the top (I mean, come on--underage prostitutes from Guatemala?), I have a hard time buying it. I think the claim that the only ACORN workers to humor this guy were, in fact, humoring him, is pretty credible. I don't know if it's true, but in a society in which everyone is familiar with hidden camera sketch shows like Punk'd and the Jamie Kennedy Experiment, it's definitely credible. And the fact that at least one of the ACORN workers in question was goading them on with absurd made-up claims of her own supports that theory.

Kraaze

09-17-2009, 08:08 AM

Well ACORN fired the people in question, so it's a little late now to play the "we were just kidding!" defense.

Reed

09-17-2009, 08:16 AM

The problem is, his shtick is so absurdly over the top (I mean, come on--underage prostitutes from Guatemala?), I have a hard time buying it. I think the claim that the only ACORN workers to humor this guy were, in fact, humoring him, is pretty credible.
But look at how many fell for Bruno. And at how many fall for the Daily Show fake interview/skits. They even still get politicians buying into it.

WarrenM

09-17-2009, 08:23 AM

And at how many fall for the Daily Show fake interview/skits.
That amazes me. It makes me sad when congress people fall for it. Really? You've never heard of the Daily Show or the Colbert Report? Really?!

antifood

09-17-2009, 08:27 AM

Well ACORN fired the people in question, so it's a little late now to play the "we were just kidding!" defense.

They fired some of them; inappropriate behavior was still being exhibited. I would imagine it would be against policy to waste company time talking about such topics, joking or not.

Eric T Cheng

09-17-2009, 08:28 AM

That amazes me. It makes me sad when congress people fall for it. Really? You've never heard of the Daily Show or the Colbert Report? Really?!

I love the interview on TDS the other night where Jason Jones interviews an Arizona state senator about the state wanting to sell the state capitol building for $750 million to meet this year's budget. In return, the state will lease back the building for 20 years, paying $1.5 billion over that time.

Jason Jones: "So what will you do about next year?"

State senator: "Um... Um... I wish you didn't stump me."

quatoria

09-17-2009, 08:32 AM

Actually, the more information I see on this whole affair, the more believable the "playing along" claim becomes. The costume--and the kid wearing it--were utterly absurd. The idea that anyone would take them seriously is a bit hard to swallow. The idea that every ACORN worker they ambushed would play along is also hard to swallow... but of course that's not actually what happened. As antifood points out, most of their encounters resulted in them being tossed out the door. Fox is only showing the encounters that went somewhere, and the conclusion that they want us make is that the ACORN workers in those encounters totally bought the act, and were taking the absurd pimp guy seriously.

Wait, are you saying Fox willfully participated in a deceptive hoax to manufacture news and then cover it in a slanted manner in order to create damaging PR for their political enemies? How dare you, sir. HOW DARE YOU. This is wholly inappropriate, and I demand more concern trolls demanding to know why the mainstream media didn't jump on this story enthusiastically to echo Fox's coverage!

AndrewM

09-17-2009, 08:34 AM

The problem is, his shtick is so absurdly over the top (I mean, come on--underage prostitutes from Guatemala?), I have a hard time buying it.

Don't forget the part about how he was going to use the profits from his pimping to fund a Democratic congressional run!

Anyways, although this is pretty terrible on many levels, it is pretty funny. Bring on the Boratgitprop!

Ben Sones

09-17-2009, 08:51 AM

Well ACORN fired the people in question, so it's a little late now to play the "we were just kidding!" defense.

It's likely they'd be fired anyway--it was bad judgment on their part, even if they were kidding. The correct response was to show the fake pimp to the door. I'm just saying that I can see how some people might decide to play along with the shtick to see where it's going. Given the details of the operation, I have an easy time believing that their thinking was more along the lines of "I'm being Punk'd" rather than "I'm being investigated by Fox news."

quatoria

09-17-2009, 09:03 AM

You should really put 'investigated' in separate, smaller quotation marks.

AndrewM

09-17-2009, 09:40 AM

Also, this wasn't actually done by Fox News, but by some activist. Fox News is just echo chambering it.

NoWayJose

09-17-2009, 09:00 PM

Haha somehow I knew Fox News would end up being blamed. Thank god ACORN is exonerated here on Qt3. The ACORN employees were clearly not "playing along," anyone watching the video can see that. Bringing in a second employee to explain the tax implications is enough proof that this was business as usual.

It's okay if a liberal organization is corrupt, people. It lends credence to the rest of them if we call a spade a spade, even if it's our spade.

Joe M.

09-17-2009, 09:26 PM

The fuck are you talking about, Jose?

Huzurdaddi

09-17-2009, 10:05 PM

The fuck are you talking about, Jose?

That this thread has turned surreal and that maybe liberals are just as fucked up and delusional as the far right.

Pogo

09-17-2009, 10:36 PM

Is there a part of the video edited out where the people go "By the way this is a joke right? Because I'm just playing along, here"?

Oh... there's not?

NoWayJose

09-17-2009, 10:50 PM

That this thread has turned surreal and that maybe liberals are just as fucked up and delusional as the far right.
I wouldn't go that far - can anyone compete with the far right as far as being delusional goes?

I'm just saying the left should revel in the chance to cull ACORN from its ranks and show the right that government-sponsored programs AREN'T inherently cesspools of corruption, instead of trying to figure out how to trash the network which aired the expose.

salwon

09-18-2009, 05:56 AM

Is there a part of the video edited out where the people go "By the way this is a joke right? Because I'm just playing along, here"?

Oh... there's not?

There is a part cut out where they get kicked out of almost all the offices where they tried this stunt.

The fact that it's only "almost" all is a problem, though.

Joe M.

09-18-2009, 06:43 AM

Jose: how about you quote and respond to someone, anyone, instead of claiming that QT3 has "exonerated" ACORN. That claim is a bunch of bullshit and you know it.

Skipper

09-18-2009, 06:55 AM

I wouldn't go that far - can anyone compete with the far right as far as being delusional goes?

I'm just saying the left should revel in the chance to cull ACORN from its ranks and show the right that government-sponsored programs AREN'T inherently cesspools of corruption, instead of trying to figure out how to trash the network which aired the expose.

I'm in agreement with you on this one. I understand ACORN's original purpose but it's become a liability for ANY party that would fund it. I'm also upset by the changing message we seem to get from leadership. We did nothing wrong. We fired the people involved. We're looking at our current business practices and making changes. It's a right wing plot out to tarnish our reputation. .... What the hell is it? Pick one of the above.

Beyond this particular issue there are also the current issues of voter registration fraud in several areas (with arrests recently in Miami), and illegal accounting practices (kicking members off your board who demand audits isn't a great idea).

In addition, all I'm hearing from the CEO Bertha Lewis in her comments * on the TV and radio are, "this is a conservative based assault against us and nothing more." Uh no, you clearly have some issues. Get them taken care of as CEO and then work on rebuilding your reputation. The same CEO also said that the current government funding that was cut was only a small part of what ACORN brings in. So be it. If she doesn't miss it, I sure as hell won't miss the connection of ACORN to Obama, the Democratic party, and the left.

* paraphrasing her comments as best as I can remember from what I heard on NPR.

NoWayJose

09-18-2009, 10:51 AM

ACORN continues to be a liability (http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN17220793)for democrats. 75 of them voted "no" to this largely symbolic measure, leaving them open for all kinds of mudslinging during their next campaign. My call is to ditch them completely, replace whatever good they were doing with Americorp offices. It's the right thing to do anyway, being politically expedient is a bonus.

Tim Partlett

09-19-2009, 05:51 AM

I just had a look at the New York and Baltimore videos, and it's pretty obvious that in those two the ACORN staff are not playing along with a joke. They seem to be geniune in their desire to help. On the other hand, the FOX news report is still odious propaganda.

The Baltimore recording in particular was manipulating the discussion into "facts". I didn't hear one mention of "child prostitutes" or "sex trafficking" or "money laundering" in the conversation, but they printed those terms up in bold text as facts.

There was a mention of "donating to a campaign", but there was no recommendation to donate to the campaign to launder money, or laundering money of any kind. The donation idea was pretty much ignored while she talked about how to avoid making the authorities suspicious, which is a completely different thing.

I don't know whether ACORN should be giving advice to prostitutes, but to me it looks like it is an every day part of their lives to deal with such people. I guess in an idealistic right-wing world we'd just turn prostitutes away from community advice centers, and leave them on the street to get beaten up by "hostile" pimps, but in an idealistic left-wing world they want to give advice to these people that will keep them alive, out of jail, and with a roof over their heads.

Robert Sharp

09-19-2009, 07:48 AM

That's a good point, me lad. But avast, ye still have ta consider the implications of tryin' ta avoid all taxes. 'tis it just a bit o sympathy from ACORN, or 'ave they been tramplin' on other laws of the land? Fox may be frothin a wee too much, forsooth. But the incident's still a barnacle on the side o ACORN, no matter which way ye lee.

Anyone else be thinkin' this nailed the coffin of federal funding fer ACORN? Congress jus' cut fundin'.

Tim Partlett

09-19-2009, 08:47 AM

This reminds me of series 3 of the Wire. There's what's happening on the ground, there's what's happening in the rarefied air of the political offices, and then there's the ignorant public perception. Of course they can't fund them if they're seen to be giving advice to prostitutes, because prostitution is illegal and they have to give them advice like "don't pay taxes or you'll be caught". It would be political suicide to support such a thing.

Personally I think the problem is that prostitution is illegal, which forces advice centres to give quasi-legal advice.

What these reports seem to have done, though, is a two pronged attack on ACORN. One part is to elicit this quasi-legal advice by pretending to be a prostitute and a pimp. This itself is enough to outrage the moral majority who oppose prostitution and would rather these people had no avice on how to survive in a nasty world.

Under the cover of this outrage they drop in subtle comments which seem to suggest they are doing something even worse, like child prostitution, people trafficking and money laundering. They never state these things explicitly, but when the counsellors continue to give advice on what they think is just surviving as a prostitute, that allows them to bring up little flash cards in the edited-for-tv version that say "advice on how to pimp out child prostitutes!"

That's propaganda.

Brian Seiler

09-21-2009, 05:46 AM

Well, I saw the lady what runs the place on Fox News Sunday during the part where they weren't bitching about how horrible it was that the president didn't want to come on their show, and she didn't do herself any favors. I suspect that their federal funding is doomed at this point.

Jazar

09-21-2009, 07:24 AM

bago

09-21-2009, 07:53 AM

Amazing how much attention can be given to the small fry.

Conservatives have been milking this story hard, what with Jindal publicly "terminating all contracts with ACORN". All 0 contracts they had. Sure, contractors in Iraq are just repainting the same forklifts over and over and claiming they are delivering them at cost of 100k per, and ran the scam for so long that they were playing football with the 100k plastic wrapped bricks of 100 dollar bills.

Remember when war profiteering was unpatriotic?

Ben Sones

09-22-2009, 05:41 AM

Haha somehow I knew Fox News would end up being blamed. Thank god ACORN is exonerated here on Qt3.

Just to be clear, I said:

I think the claim that the only ACORN workers to humor this guy were, in fact, humoring him, is pretty credible. I don't know if it's true, but in a society in which everyone is familiar with hidden camera sketch shows like Punk'd and the Jamie Kennedy Experiment, it's definitely credible.

I am in no way exonerating ACORN, because I don't have all the facts. I am pissing on Fox News, though, because they are experts at making sure that people don't have all the facts.

LesJarvis

09-22-2009, 02:21 PM

Apparently the defund ACORN bill overreached slightly:

The congressional legislation intended to defund ACORN, passed with broad bipartisan support, is written so broadly that it applies to "any organization" that has been charged with breaking federal or state election laws, lobbying disclosure laws, campaign finance laws or filing fraudulent paperwork with any federal or state agency. It also applies to any of the employees, contractors or other folks affiliated with a group charged with any of those things.

In other words, the bill could plausibly defund the entire military-industrial complex. Whoops

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/22/whoops-anti-acorn-bill-ro_n_294949.html

Case

09-22-2009, 02:33 PM

Apparently, the Acorn worker caught in the Fox News video actually reported the incident to the police (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ACORN_HIDDEN_CAMERA?SITE=FLSTU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT).

Huzurdaddi

09-22-2009, 03:50 PM

Apparently the defund ACORN bill overreached slightly:

I don't see why this is a problem, sounds like congress did something right.

Andrew Mayer

09-22-2009, 05:10 PM

I don't see why this is a problem, sounds like congress did something right.

It really shows exactly what a circus this is.

RSofaer

09-22-2009, 05:34 PM

Huzurdaddi

09-22-2009, 05:48 PM

Everything possible needs to be done to defend that bill. It's not retroactive and doesn't confiscate property, so it might not be a bill of attainder, and it would be totally worth it to sacrifice ACORN for that sort of legal obligation to be laid on the federal government.

I would figure that the current supreme court would strike it down no matter what. But the congress should make them do it, and who knows maybe just maybe they would not strike it down and people who contracted for the government would have to *gasp* play within the rules. ZOMG, ground breaking!

RSofaer

09-22-2009, 05:59 PM

(1) Any organization that has been indicted for a violation under any Federal or State law governing the financing of a campaign for election for public office or any law governing the administration of an election for public office, including a law relating to voter registration.

(2) Any organization that had its State corporate charter terminated due to its failure to comply with Federal or State lobbying disclosure requirements.

(3) Any organization that has filed a fraudulent form with any Federal or State regulatory agency.

Making indictment the threshold seems crazy, though.

Hawkeye Fierce

09-22-2009, 06:32 PM

Wow, that's an unexpected twist for this saga. Cool beans.

bago

09-22-2009, 08:32 PM

Suddenly you would see Dusty Foggo and his ilk thrown under the bus even faster.

Anders Hallin

09-23-2009, 06:29 AM

The fun part is of course to see how quick they'll make this law disappear when it might hit organisations that are actually corrupt and disgusting at their root.

Andrew Mayer

09-23-2009, 05:56 PM

Don't you understand? It's supposed to be kabuki!

Cubit

09-24-2009, 07:55 AM

Barney Frank weighs in on O'Reilly's show. I think they actually agree for once, atleast in part. :)

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

Houngan

09-24-2009, 08:18 AM

I like how O'Reilly can't comprehend how someone would refuse to voice an opinion without having the facts. It's like he's colorblind to cautious speaking.

H.

Anti-Bunny

09-24-2009, 10:32 AM

Looks like Acorn is now dragging the kids to court for this.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/23/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5333509.shtml
"The fact that people who were improperly registered to vote did not actually cast ballots in no way excuses the organization’s failure to exercise better control in this way," he said. "Further, the motivation of those who went to ACORN offices and initiated the discussions involving prostitution are wholly irrelevant to the fact that ACORN’s employees’ actions were outrageous and further indication of an organization that is at best poorly run in many regards. The defense against sting operations is not to ban them, but to behave properly so that they do not reveal as they did in this case clear evidence of gross impropriety."
Uuuh.. okay.

AndrewM

09-24-2009, 10:41 AM

Uuuh.. okay.

What's wrong with that? He's saying the problem isn't the gotcha investigation, it is ACORN acting with "gross impropriety".

Anti-Bunny

09-24-2009, 10:47 AM

What's wrong with that? He's saying the problem isn't the gotcha investigation, it is ACORN acting with "gross impropriety".
Okay, that makes more sense.. I thought he meant that the people behind the sting operation should 'behave properly so that they do not reveal..' etc

Cubit

09-26-2009, 08:07 AM

Good clip from Maddow's show last night. It warms my heart to know that Acorn is no longer receiving federal money, but DynCorp (several DynCorp employees were sent home from Bosnia when it was discovered they were involved in an underage sex slave ring (http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2002/08/06/dyncorp/index.html)) continues to receive massive military contracts.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/33027963#33027963

AndrewM

09-26-2009, 10:42 AM

Good clip from Maddow's show last night. It warms my heart to know that Acorn is no longer receiving federal money, but DynCorp (several DynCorp employees were sent home from Bosnia when it was discovered they were involved in an underage sex slave ring (http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2002/08/06/dyncorp/index.html)) continues to receive massive military contracts.

It is only bad to help people who PRETEND to have underage sex slaves. If you actually have them, play on, player!

Anti-Bunny

10-21-2009, 09:35 PM

Mordrak

10-21-2009, 09:58 PM

Another new Acorn video.. this time from the Philly office.. the one they were thrown out of.. except, they weren't thrown out or even asked to leave..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af9DDayHwbg&feature=player_e

Yes, because the first thing ACORN employees should do is beat her for being a prostitute, like her pimp. It's funny that they mute for so long and comments they had no problem with the way she dressed. Oooooh, she's wearing a "strange" leather top. They should kick her out just for that.

Though, I'm interested in seeing the whole unedited tape. I've never heard of cameras running out of battery life recording audio and not video. Is that common?

Edit: Oh, and it's not new. It's from July. He's just releasing it now, which is just a political move.

Edit: And to be fair, she obviously misreported to the media specifics of her meeting with them, but I do really want to see the whole tape so there's some context.

Laura

10-22-2009, 11:07 AM

An interesting opinion piece in today's LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-dreier22-2009oct22,0,6070708.story

"A healthy democracy requires that the voices of the poor be heard in the corridors of power. That's what ACORN has been facilitating, more successfully than any other community group, since the 1970s. If ACORN's enemies are able to defeat this feisty group, it won't just be the organization's 500,000 members who will suffer. Our democracy will suffer too."

Fugitive

10-22-2009, 11:13 AM

Whatever they did wrong, does anybody really give that much of a damn about ACORN, or is it just an attempt to keep the "Obama stole the election thanks to ACORN's massive fraud!" insinuations alive in the backs of people's minds?

Kraaze

10-22-2009, 11:18 AM

The latter of course.

Anti-Bunny

10-22-2009, 11:21 AM

Whatever they did wrong, does anybody really give that much of a damn about ACORN
Not really. I just think it's entertaining to watch the two sides argue about it. The Acorn office is run by a liar, but I'm betting there is also more to the video then what has been released (the muting is curious and still no original unedited). There was a police report filled out afterwards that wasn't mentioned in the video, so there's still something fishy going on on breitbart's side.

Cubit

12-12-2009, 06:38 AM

Yesterday, in a lawsuit brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights, Federal District Judge Nina Gershon of the Eastern District of New York found Congress' de-funding of ACORN unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement. This is a major victory not only for ACORN, but also for the Constitution.

Judge Gershon's opinion (http://ccrjustice.org/files/Judge%20Gershon%2012%2011%202009%20PI%20Order.pdf) is a model of careful and dispassionate judicial reasoning. Rejecting the DOJ's claim that Congress had merely exercised its funding discretion rather than "punished" ACORN, the court wrote: "Wholly apart from the vociferous comments by various members of Congress as to ACORN's criminality and fraud . . . no reasonable observer could suppose that such severe action would have been taken in the absence of a conclusion that misconduct occurred." The court pointed to numerous statements made by Senators, including the bill's primary sponsor (Sen. Johanns), in which they anointed themselves judge and jury to declare ACORN guilty of crimes with which they had not even been charged, let alone convicted. Relying on Lovett -- which held unconstitutional a Congressional act banning specified individuals from government employment based on the unadjudicated finding that they had "subversive beliefs" and "subversive associations" -- Judge Gershon explained that under clear Supreme Court law: "the discretionary nature of government funding does not foreclose a finding that Congress has impermissibly singled out plaintiffs for punishment."

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/12/12/acorn/index.html

Anders Hallin

12-12-2009, 06:42 AM

The videos that have been released appear to have been edited, in some cases substantially, including the insertion of a substitute voiceover for significant portions of Mr. O'Keefe's and Ms. Giles's comments, which makes it difficult to determine the questions to which ACORN employees are responding. A comparison of the publicly available transcripts to the released videos confirms that large portions of the original video have been omitted from the released versions.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/acorn_report_finds_no_illegal_conduct.php?ref=fpbl g

Mordrak

12-12-2009, 12:24 PM

Well, ACORN hired him as an independent investigator, but you can pay lawyers to say just about anything. That said, did they end up releasing the entire videos for us to judge for ourselves? I know the last one they did mute a bunch of the conversation while they preened about being so clever and ACORN so bad.

Anti-Bunny

12-12-2009, 02:18 PM

I'm going to go ahead and guess that the Obama administration will choose not to appeal this ruling, either.

bago

12-12-2009, 10:39 PM

I'm going to go ahead and guess that the Obama administration will choose not to appeal this ruling, either.

True. Any organization tarred by constructed evidence should follow the rules of decorum and hide their head in shame. I mean they were accused!

Brad Grenz

12-12-2009, 11:16 PM

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/12/12/acorn/index.html

Does anyone else find this a troubling precedent? What if congress wants to terminate a contract with a defense contractor after evidence surfaces of misconduct? The quoted text there makes it sound like now, once you have congressional funding they no longer have the power to revoke it. Whether or not the act of removing funding can be seen a punitive seems quite immaterial to me. Congress didn't pass a law calling for the imprisonment of ACORN employees. I believe that is the kind of thing the ban on attainder is meant to prevent, construing that part of the Constitution to apply to the budgetary process strikes me as a pretty huge overstep of the Judicial Branch's authority. I mean, where do we draw the line? Is it really punishment when someone says you no longer get free money? What if we were talking about a subcontractor that just happened to be incompetent at the work they are supposed to be doing say, processing payroll for city workers in DC? Is it punitive for Congress terminate their contract? I understand the writer at Salon wants to give a big Fuck You to the Right over this ACORN stuff, but I can't imagine him being so gung ho about the same ruling if it said the Obama administration couldn't pass a bill it wants terminating a defense contract with Haliburton.

Kraaze

12-13-2009, 01:28 AM

Does anyone else find this a troubling precedent? What if congress wants to terminate a contract with a defense contractor after evidence surfaces of misconduct?

There are laws against that sort of thing, and procedures for investigating and punishing those responsible.

The quoted text there makes it sound like now, once you have congressional funding they no longer have the power to revoke it.

I think they do have the power to revoke it, but they have to be a little more careful about how they do it and how they word it to not make it seem so punitive.

Anders Hallin

12-13-2009, 01:42 AM

Brad, not really, if you want to write such a bill, you write it like the Franken amendment:
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00308

It's clear who is the target, but it has certain criteria and is applied generally.

Brad Grenz

12-13-2009, 01:48 AM

But I think this kinda opens pandora's box in the interpretation of what constitutes an attainder. I don't know the full legal history, but in my quick and dirty research it seems like the term has always been construed very narrowly. The ban is supposed to make sure congress doesn't circumvent the judicial process. This law did nothing of the sort and it strikes me that ACORN's argument that having their federal funding cut constitutes an attainder is the radical one here. And by ruling in their favor this Judge is actually creating a precedent that circumvents congressional authority over government spending.

Joe M.

12-13-2009, 04:31 AM

You already linked to the counter-argument, Brad. I'm not sure what you're looking for here.

Yesterday, GOP Rep. Paul Broun had a five-minute dialogue with Rep. Alan Grayson about the unconstitutionality of the Congressional GOP's numerous amendments directed exclusively at ACORN, all of which bar ACORN from receiving any government contracts due to alleged wrongdoing (not adjudicated by any court). While being questioned by Grayson about whether these measures are unconstitutional "bills of attainder" -- acts of Congress that punish specific individuals for alleged, unadjudicated wrongdoing -- Broun was handed a piece of paper, which he dutifully read, claiming that these amendments do not impose "punishment" on ACORN. Instead, he claimed, Congress is merely barring ACORN from receiving government contracts, and since nobody has the "right" to receive government contracts, there is no "punishment" here. It's simply a case of the government exercising its prerogative as to who it will and will not hire.

As always happens, numerous people who never gave a moment's thought to what a "bill of attainder" is rushed forward to declare that Broun was correct, because they want to believe that. But it's false, and clearly so.

Under the law as pronounced by the Supreme Court -- i.e., the authoritative source on this question -- it is "punishment" when the Congress targets specific individuals and denies them even discretionary benefits otherwise available based on allegations of guilty behavior. Just read for yourself what the Court has said. Or -- for those of you who want to argue otherwise -- think about what you're endorsing.

In 1946, the Court decided the interesting case of U.S. v. Lovett. That suit was brought by three government employees who, despite uniformly positive performance evaluations, were specifically named by an amendment passed by Congress as possessing "subversive beliefs" and "subversive associations," and were therefore barred from receiving future pay for any work for the Federal Government. The Court observed that the bill (Section 304) "was designed to force the employing agencies to discharge respondents and to bar their being hired by any other governmental agency." As the Court put it: "what is involved here is a congressional proscription of Lovett, Watson, and Dodd, prohibiting their ever holding a government job."

Obviously, there is no "right" to receive a job from the Federal Government, and Congress has the Constitutional power to make appropriations decisions. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court held that the law imposed "punishment" on these specific individuals and was thus an unconstitutional bill of attainder.

He even goes on (http://archive.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/10/23/acorn/) to quote the Supreme Court ruling, so I don't where the confusion is. The law very clearly applies.

jerri blank

12-13-2009, 05:27 AM

Does anyone else find this a troubling precedent? What if congress wants to terminate a contract with a defense contractor after evidence surfaces of misconduct? The quoted text there makes it sound like now, once you have congressional funding they no longer have the power to revoke it.

As a federal grantee, I can tell you that the government has ways to keep crooked operators from getting funding. Organizations found to have engaged in misconduct, fraud, etc., can be "debarred" from applying for funds, but - and here's what didn't happen in the ACORN case - there has to be some due process.

Whatever went on in those videos, ACORN does good work in a lot of areas. Their housing counseling operation has saved a lot of homeowners from foreclosure and forced several lenders to abandon some of their more predatory practices. It was never alleged that their housing counseling operation was involved in these videos, yet if the bill had been allowed to stand, their very effective activities would have shut down.

Federal funding is not a "right" that anyone has, but there has to be a process for denying it. Even public housing residents get a grievance hearing. ACORN never did.

Skipper

01-26-2010, 02:55 PM

So it seems one of the guys in the ACORN videos is apparently now part of a much bigger and very illegal activity.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/26/senate.office.break.in/index.html?hpt=T1
and
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/us/politics/27landrieu.html

Four men were charged Tuesday after attempting to illegally access and manipulate the phone system in a district office of U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-Louisiana, a local U.S. attorney's office said.

Joseph Basel, 24, Robert Flanagan, 24, James O'Keefe, 25, and Stan Dai, 24, were charged with entering Landrieu's New Orleans office, which is federal property, under "false pretenses for the purpose of committing a felony," according to the attorney's office.

Law enforcement officials say they believe O'Keefe is the conservative activist of the same name who dressed up as a pimp last summer and visited an office of ACORN, a liberal community organizing group, in order to solicit advice on setting up a brothel, among other scenarios.

He secretly recorded the visits on video and posted them on the Web, leading to a media firestorm.

Basel and Flanagan attempted to gain access to Landrieu's office Monday while posing as telephone repairmen, the attorney's office said in a news release.

All I can think of is a big fat, WTF? I have so many questions on what the hell they were doing there and what the intentions were. I'm also qondering how quickly this will the tracked back either in planning or funding to a political party or interest group.

Pogo

01-26-2010, 03:00 PM

I hope this was ordered by FOX News.

antifood

01-26-2010, 03:03 PM

What a dumbass. His shit is wrecked if convicted.

Talisker

01-26-2010, 03:07 PM

One of 'em is the son of a US Attorney. I'll bet Dad is a little ticked right now.

Pogo

01-26-2010, 03:09 PM

The independent filmmaker who brought ACORN to its knees last year with undercover exposes

Ahhhh FOX

Mordrak

01-26-2010, 03:10 PM

Isn't that what pimps do?

Edit: Nevermind, I think you are making that joke. I couldn't tell if you were or if were just mocking the so called exposes.

Anaxagoras

01-26-2010, 04:41 PM

What a dumbass. His shit is wrecked if convicted.

Ollie North, G. Gordon Liddy, etc.

If you're Conservative, it doesn't matter if you break the law in the service of Conservatism. You'll still have a career after the judicial system gets done with you. Hell, there's a good chance your career will be enhanced by it.

Omniscia

01-26-2010, 05:22 PM

Ollie North, G. Gordon Liddy, etc.

If you're Conservative, it doesn't matter if you break the law in the service of Conservatism. You'll still have a career after the judicial system gets done with you. Hell, there's a good chance your career will be enhanced by it.

Doing what? Selling calendars? (http://www.stackedandpacked.com/)

Lorini

01-26-2010, 07:40 PM

His dad doesn't think he did 'anything illegal because he would know better'. Well he's on tape doing something illegal so I guess his dad is wrong.

bago

01-27-2010, 04:17 AM

They're just some good old boys.

Brian Seiler

01-27-2010, 06:03 AM

I think it's pretty clear that they were never meanin' no harm.

Skipper

01-27-2010, 06:11 AM

What are you guys joking? Those boys have clearly been in trouble with the law since the day they was born.

jerri blank

01-27-2010, 06:12 AM

That beats all you ever saw.

ceolstan

01-27-2010, 06:14 AM

I think it's pretty clear that they were never meanin' no harm.
Sure, I mean, intent isn't really important. They didn't mean to enter under false pretenses (pretending to be telephone repair personnel), or electronically eavesdrop. Just kid stuff, really.

Note: This is a bit along the lines of what the dad is saying. Ah, boys will be boys. Gotta love 'em!

Brian Seiler

01-27-2010, 06:20 AM

Sure, I mean, intent isn't really important. They didn't mean to enter under false pretenses (pretending to be telephone repair personnel), or electronically eavesdrop. Just kid stuff, really.

Note: This is a bit along the lines of what the dad is saying. Ah, boys will be boys. Gotta love 'em!

Well, you have to cut them some slack, here. I mean, they were just straightening the curves of our impenetrable political system and flattening the hills of government to let us all see what was going on behind the scenes.

I mean - what's the point? One of these days the mountain they're fighting might get them, but the law certainly never will. Besides - they're making their way the only way they know how. That's just a little bit more than the law will allow.

[Do I get credit for trying?]

Skipper

01-27-2010, 06:34 AM

A+ Brian

Flowers

01-27-2010, 08:22 AM

Patton Oswalt weighs in. (http://www.videosift.com/video/Patton-Oswalt-Bush-and-Cheney-as-the-Dukes-of-Hazzard)

Cubit

03-02-2010, 08:03 PM

ACORN cleared of any criminal wrongdoing by Brooklyn prosecutors:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2010/03/01/2010-03-01_bklyn_acorn_cleared_over_giving_illegal_advice_ on_how_to_hide_money_from_prostit.html#ixzz0gxpib9 Cn

Jazar

03-03-2010, 05:40 AM

The damage is already done.

Cubit

03-03-2010, 06:02 AM

The damage is already done.

Sadly, you are right.

foogla

03-03-2010, 10:38 AM

the prosecutor was bought by ACORN why can't you sheeple see the light?!?!

DragonPup

03-03-2010, 10:44 AM

As much as it would make O'keefe a martyr to the radical right, I would like to see ACORN take O'Keefe to court for slander.

Phil_Stein

03-03-2010, 10:46 AM

DragonPup - what statements made by O'Keefe about ACORN do you view as slanderous?

DragonPup

03-03-2010, 10:58 AM

The fact the video that he asserted was true was found to be edited. Since he knew that the video was a lie, and it caused ACORN fiscal harm, he fulfills the requirement of acting with malice needed for a slander suit against a public figure or institute.

Phil_Stein

03-03-2010, 11:06 AM

The video was a "lie"?

Did he make it in a studio?

Did he make a specific claim about the video that was untrue?

Andrew Mayer

03-03-2010, 11:12 AM

The video was a "lie"?

Did he make it in a studio?

Did he make a specific claim about the video that was untrue?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Pogo

03-03-2010, 12:47 PM

So it's not illegal for a government funded organization to provide a solution to covering up criminal activity for tax purposes?

Houngan

03-03-2010, 12:51 PM

While the video by James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles seemed to show three ACORN workers advising a prostitute how to hide ill-gotten gains, the unedited version was not as clear, according to a law enforcement source.

At this point it seems to be in the "I can't say unless I see the unedited video" camp.

H.

Matthew Gallant

03-03-2010, 12:59 PM

So it's not illegal for a government funded organization to provide a solution to covering up criminal activity for tax purposes?
Oh, it definitely is, but then, the prosecution didn't prove that that is what happened. Fox News proved it to you and Phil, but that's neither here nor there.

Matthew Gallant

03-03-2010, 01:01 PM

Pogo - the only wrongdoing that occurred here was by O'Keefe, who slanderously released a lying video that... the horrors... was *****EDITED*****!!!
Oh, you. Delete faster next time.

Ben Sones

03-03-2010, 01:06 PM

Pogo slanderously released a lying video... the horror.

I did some editing. ;)

Fugitive

03-03-2010, 01:09 PM

So it's not illegal for a government funded organization to provide a solution to covering up criminal activity for tax purposes?
It would obviously be illegal for a person to do so, but can it be proven that it's part of organizational policy and not just a couple of idiots working for them, even if you believe the claims? I'm no lawyer so I'm not sure where the boundaries between organizational responsibility and personal responsibility lie here, but organizations obviously don't come crumbling down every time an employee does something wrong/stupid/criminal.