|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Sept 17, 2009 11:56:25 GMT -5
Seven Democrats did not vote against the ACORN measure. That is a matter of factual accuracy. Consider also that seven Republicans did not vote.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Sept 17, 2009 12:03:25 GMT -5
This article is about a 3 minute read and I think does an incredible job at explaining the view of people who don't understand the intense focus on Acorn outrage in light of other abuses going on. It isn't as simple as tit for tat in showing how each other's "sides" all do bad things, but how the anger of the right wing is very often directed at everyone EXCEPT those who have a substantial influence over large policy and monetary issues. This isn't an argument to claim that they have no right to complain, obviously they do. But what is it that directs the anger at things like healthcare reform and Acorn instead of (insert one: corruption in war profiteering, revolving door between government and business, government contract abuses, corporate tax shelters...)? Attempts to discuss this quickly move into controversial explanations (e.g. racism topic on this board), but I'd be interested in hearing the views of some people on this board on this idea and those put forth in the article linked. www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/09/17/acorn_hysteria/People are angry at healthcare reform and bailouts (see town halls and tea party protesters). But... Seven Democrats voted against shutting down ACORN. No Republicans. Just Democrats. Salon's article states: "To a non-profit group that devotes itself to providing minute benefits to people who live under America's poverty line, and which is so powerless in Washington that virtually the entire U.S. Senate just voted to cut off its funding at the first sign of real controversy -- could anyone imagine that happening to a key player in the banking or defense industry?" The best part of watching the Daily Show was Jon Stewart's comment that surely discussing underaged prostitution of noncitizens (who are rife for abuse, illegal or not), and ACORN didn't even flinch! That's what gets me. Democrats - and not one nut, but seven, continue to defend the organization, and Salon says that they're just trying to help people find houses. THEY'RE ABETTING PROPOSED UNDERAGED PROSTITUTION AND POSSIBLE SEX SLAVERY AND YOU DON'T BAT AN EYEBALL? WTF? Who said I don't bat an eyeball? Is the organization devoted to helping underage prostitution? Or did individual people do that? I mean really, if you want to take the actions of individual people in a group or organization and equate that with the total actions of the organization itself, you're opening yourself up to INFINITE discussions about the value of almost ANY organization/company/group.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Sept 17, 2009 12:05:18 GMT -5
Seven Democrats did not vote against the ACORN measure. That is a matter of factual accuracy. Consider also that seven Republicans did not vote. senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00275I count 7. Well, six plus Sanders. Burris (D-IL) Casey (D-PA) Durbin (D-IL) Gillibrand (D-NY) Leahy (D-VT) Sanders (I-VT) Whitehouse (D-RI) Nine didn't vote. Unsure why. Burr (R-NC) Byrd (D-WV) Coburn (R-OK) Graham (R-SC) Gregg (R-NH) Hutchison (R-TX) McCain (R-AZ) Mikulski (D-MD) Vitter (R-LA)
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Sept 17, 2009 12:05:47 GMT -5
Seven Democrats did not vote against the ACORN measure. That is a matter of factual accuracy. Consider also that seven Republicans did not vote. Sorry, you are right. Earlier I said that there are seven Senators who should be ashamed of themselves. I should have upped that number to 14. My mistake. (KayBay is getting drilled for this by the Perry campaign).
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Sept 17, 2009 12:12:36 GMT -5
Seven Democrats did not vote against the ACORN measure. That is a matter of factual accuracy. Consider also that seven Republicans did not vote. senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00275I count 7. Well, six plus Sanders. Burris (D-IL) Casey (D-PA) Durbin (D-IL) Gillibrand (D-NY) Leahy (D-VT) Sanders (I-VT) Whitehouse (D-RI) Nine didn't vote. Unsure why. Burr (R-NC) Byrd (D-WV) Coburn (R-OK) Graham (R-SC) Gregg (R-NH) Hutchison (R-TX) McCain (R-AZ) Mikulski (D-MD) Vitter (R-LA) There is a difference between six and seven, especially in a factual statement. Think about the non-voters. How is their position acceptable? We know John McCain purports to oppose ACORN. His designated pancake-flipper Lindsay Graham also opposes them and did so during the 2008 campaign. Burr and Coburn co-sponsored the amendment and failed to show up. David Vitter's motives may be interesting to evaluate. In any event, these chuckleheads made a political football out of the issue during the campaign and then have other things to do during the vote - one of huge importance to the right wing?
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Sept 17, 2009 12:14:59 GMT -5
Seven Democrats did not vote against the ACORN measure. That is a matter of factual accuracy. Consider also that seven Republicans did not vote. Sorry, you are right. Earlier I said that there are seven Senators who should be ashamed of themselves. I should have upped that number to 14. My mistake. (KayBay is getting drilled for this by the Perry campaign). It should be 16 (Byrd and Mikulski did not vote), but I think most reasonable people could give Byrd a pass given his health to take us to 15.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Sept 17, 2009 12:22:55 GMT -5
I'm not good at math.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Sept 17, 2009 12:36:53 GMT -5
There is a difference between six and seven, especially in a factual statement. Think about the non-voters. How is their position acceptable? We know John McCain purports to oppose ACORN. His designated pancake-flipper Lindsay Graham also opposes them and did so during the 2008 campaign. Burr and Coburn co-sponsored the amendment and failed to show up. David Vitter's motives may be interesting to evaluate. In any event, these chuckleheads made a political football out of the issue during the campaign and then have other things to do during the vote - one of huge importance to the right wing? There is not a difference between six and seven when the one diferent is Bernie Sanders, who caucuses with the Democrats on a consistent basis. If you argue that there is, that "it depends on what your definition of 'is' is", it's just weasel wording.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Sept 17, 2009 12:39:53 GMT -5
If the rule is "caucus[ing] with the Democrats on a consistent basis," how do you draw the line for a Joe Lieberman? That's arbitrary and an a la carte gesture of principle and covers up for the factual inaccuracy of the original statement.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Sept 17, 2009 12:55:25 GMT -5
If the rule is "caucus[ing] with the Democrats on a consistent basis," how do you draw the line for a Joe Lieberman? That's arbitrary and an a la carte gesture of principle and covers up for the factual inaccuracy of the original statement. Really, you're fighting on whether Sanders is a Democrat or not? And if he's not, that blows away my argument completely? They proposed illegal, underaged, prostitution! And ACORN told them how to lie about it! Doesn't that concern you in the least?
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Sept 17, 2009 13:05:26 GMT -5
The point that you made did not concern prostitution, but that Democrats were allegedly abetting it. Your evidence included an allegation that seven Democrats voted against an amendment, which I believe, is in the housing bill. Blame was squarely placed on the shoulders of Democrats.
When confronted with evidence of non-voters, who have been ridiculed by other Republicans for their non-votes, what's your reaction? Ho-hum. (Better evidence would be the several millions of dollars earmarked by Republican Congresses for ACORN.) It does not fit my point, I'll ignore it, and hold fast to my hypothesis while accusing people who challenge my thinking as supporters of prostitution. The thinking makes about as much sense as a three dollar bill, frankly, and sometimes that kind of thing pops up when someone takes liberties with facts.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Sept 17, 2009 13:09:31 GMT -5
People are angry at healthcare reform and bailouts (see town halls and tea party protesters). But... Seven Democrats voted against shutting down ACORN. No Republicans. Just Democrats. Salon's article states: "To a non-profit group that devotes itself to providing minute benefits to people who live under America's poverty line, and which is so powerless in Washington that virtually the entire U.S. Senate just voted to cut off its funding at the first sign of real controversy -- could anyone imagine that happening to a key player in the banking or defense industry?" The best part of watching the Daily Show was Jon Stewart's comment that surely discussing underaged prostitution of noncitizens (who are rife for abuse, illegal or not), and ACORN didn't even flinch! That's what gets me. Democrats - and not one nut, but seven, continue to defend the organization, and Salon says that they're just trying to help people find houses. THEY'RE ABETTING PROPOSED UNDERAGED PROSTITUTION AND POSSIBLE SEX SLAVERY AND YOU DON'T BAT AN EYEBALL? WTF? Who said I don't bat an eyeball? Is the organization devoted to helping underage prostitution? Or did individual people do that? I mean really, if you want to take the actions of individual people in a group or organization and equate that with the total actions of the organization itself, you're opening yourself up to INFINITE discussions about the value of almost ANY organization/company/group. I'm sorry, when people in a variety of offices are cool with trying to teach people how to violate the law to help a pimp run underage prostitution, I don't really care how many people they're getting in houses - an organization whose ethos thinks that that's OK is rotten.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Sept 17, 2009 14:06:36 GMT -5
Again, picking out specific individuals doing things that are completely against the purpose and rules of an organization and condemning the entire organization based on that. I'm sure that every organization you support has total control over each individual and anything horrible anyone does is a mark against the legitimacy of the organization itself. Right?
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Sept 17, 2009 14:36:11 GMT -5
Again, picking out specific individuals doing things that are completely against the purpose and rules of an organization and condemning the entire organization based on that. I'm sure that every organization you support has total control over each individual and anything horrible anyone does is a mark against the legitimacy of the organization itself. Right? Really? Five different tapes from five different offices in five different cities (with more tapes to come) and you're STILL buying the ACORN argument that this is just a few isolated individuals and they can't hope to police everyone? Might I interest you in a bridge I have for sale, or perhaps this $250 million dollar inheritance that's become available from an African prince? EDIT: Oh, and it's not on a tape, but if we believe the filmmakers -- and they haven't done anything yet that says we shouldn't believe them -- while every office they visited was not as blatant as the those that have been released on tape, they report that not one single ACORN office that they visited ever refused to talk to them about their proposal (let alone called the police to report their activity). ACORN says they're lying about that, but based on what we know, I think I know which party is lying.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,450
|
Post by TC on Sept 17, 2009 14:40:55 GMT -5
Splitting hairs, but I think its four, not five. The San Bernadino woman was being remarkably stupid and effing around with them rather than kicking them out.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Sept 17, 2009 14:41:42 GMT -5
Splitting hairs, but I think its four, not five. The San Bernadino woman was being remarkably stupid and effing around with them rather than kicking them out. You missed the San Diego tape from yesterday. That guy actually tried to solicit the girl. (mind you, she is a bit of a hottie ;D )
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Sept 17, 2009 14:48:32 GMT -5
So let's disband Georgetown, the Catholic Church, the military, countless major corporations, Congress, the Senate, the court system... I mean they've all had controversies and bad things go on within their ranks. Some worse, some not as bad, some at higher levels in the organization.
The point isn't that what they did was ok. It's not. The point is the level of anger and outrage at this compared to other situations that are a much bigger deal. What directs the anger to Acorn and not these these other institutions?
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Sept 17, 2009 15:24:30 GMT -5
So let's disband Georgetown, the Catholic Church, the military, countless major corporations, Congress, the Senate, the court system... I mean they've all had controversies and bad things go on within their ranks. Some worse, some not as bad, some at higher levels in the organization. The point isn't that what they did was ok. It's not. The point is the level of anger and outrage at this compared to other situations that are a much bigger deal. What directs the anger to Acorn and not these these other institutions? I'll talk to the wall one last time. The issue is not "controversies and bad things". The issue is that it seems pervasive. Georgetown got busted in baseball for rules violations. Not pervasive. The US military has had the occasional case of very bad things happening (My Lai, rare soldiers abusing their position), but it's not been pervasive. In the one case where it was, Abu Ghraib, everyone came down hard and big changes happened. The Catholic Church, with the sex abuse scandal, lost many, many people who thought that the problem was too widespread. ACORN has persistently refused to admit to any wrongdoing - a spokesman interviewed on ABC News last night blamed a conspiracy. There's a difference.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Sept 17, 2009 15:26:50 GMT -5
Oh, ok I understand now. The issue is whether or not YOU consider it pervasive.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Sept 17, 2009 15:46:07 GMT -5
House votes 345 to 75 to remove all ACORN funding.
This goes beyond what the Senate voted for, but I can't imagine the Senate will not adopt this as well.
Good for you, House!
Shame on 75 of you.
|
|