Crazy Joe strikes again!!

The truth that RW'ers cannot, will not hear.

http://factcheck.org/2008/10/acorn-accusations/

 

Now, just who should I believe, your "four separate investigations" unnamed and undocumented or the 8 convictions I listed above (which included at least 8 separate investigations) and the films released such as http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UOL9Jh61S8? Somehow, I think I trust my eyes more than I could ever trust you words.

 

Straight from you site;

Oh! My! Your own reference says they are guilty.

 

So the victim here is ACORN since they paid people to register voters and a tiny number of people across the country filled in names of nonexistent voters on "registration forms" so that they could get paid for doing work that they didn't actually do. All you have proven is ACORN's innocence while proving that registration fraud is not voter fraud. Thanks!

 

I read it as acorn being the guilty party & the American taxpayer being the victim.

 

Seems like someone is still looking for the last word . . . just sayin'

No matter how it is spun, ACORN has broken the law on more than one occasion. If there had been no wrong-doing, the organization would not have closed chapters and some chapters whitewashed themselves with a name changes and separated themselves from the main chapter. ACORN started out as a good organization, but it got immersed in political areas in which it did not belong. The group was supposed to be non-partisan, but allowed itself to become partisan over time and failed to maintain their own internal policies. And, while employees avoided prosecution, the organization itself was determined to need policing. Here's part of the conclusion of the California AG's report:

"ACORN was not the criminal enterprise described by O’Keefe in his “Chaos for Glory” statement – it did not receive billions in federal funds and did not control elections. ACORN is, however, disorganized and its operations were far from transparent, leaving it vulnerable to allegations of illegal activity and misuse of funds. Many of the ACORN employees lacked appropriate training and ACORN did not comply with its own internal policies and procedures. Unfortunately for ACORN, ACORN itself had undermined public confidence in the organization before O’Keefe and Giles walked into the first ACORN office. By covering up Dale Rathke’s embezzlement, keeping him as an employee and going after board members who sought to rectify the situation, ACORN’s management damaged the organization.

The California chapter has broken away from ACORN and reorganized in California. A charity operating in this state cannot avoid the law by changing its name. Criminal and civil liability attach to the people who illegally manage a charity. At this time, however, we find no evidence that would justify legal action against ACORN employees. The new ACCE will now be subject to supervision by this Office and we will scrutinize its activities going forward to ensure compliance with California law. This Office will continue to monitor the investigations in other states and at the federal level for any further allegations related to ACORN’s activities in California."

You can read the entire report, here: http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1888_acorn_report.pdf

 

Small number? "falsifying about 400 voter registration cards.", "registering three of her friends to vote 40 times.", "Of 5,379 voter registration cards ACORN submitted in St. Louis, only 2,013 of those appeared to be valid.", "as many as 3,000 potentially fraudulent signatures on the group’s Albuquerque ballot initiative", "police found more than 300 voter registration cards in the trunk of a former ACORN employee", "An audit revealed that 83% of sampled registrations that were rejected for carrying false or questionable information were submitted by Project Vote.", "State Board of Elections reported that 56% of the voter registration applications ACORN turned in were ineligible", etc. And that is only where my reference listed specific numbers

First you said they were not guilty of anything, now you are saying they are ONLY guilty of registration fraud. You know that you blamed everything on Bush from 2000 to 2012 just because he was president, but you think ACORN should bear no responsibility for the RAMPANT fraud of its employees. Yeah, right!

BTW, there are 50 states and countless city attorneys out there. You mean they could only find three who had there heads in the wrong spot to see the blatant ACORN fraud?

 

Just heard this one;

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/21/officials-plead-guilty-in-new-york-voter-fraud-case/#ixzz1jjLCFiK2​

Before you go off on Fox News, notice that they PLED guilty.​

 

The bad part is that, within the dim party, when you do finally confess you rise in prominence. These guys will be in BO's inner circle before long!

 

Looks like another accusation of *Democrats* trying to steal an election (hey, I'm not trying to make this into a partisan war, but LOOK, *BOTH* parties do it!), in which people have pleaded guilty:

http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Democrat-admits-role-in-voter-fraud-case-2142541.php

And LOOK! It's related to . . . ACORN!! LOL

http://www.newsmax.com/US/Voter-fraud-New-York/2011/12/22/id/421895

I'm sorry . . . I'm done being mean--but this story was just a gift this morning. All I'm trying to say is that when people make sweeping generalizations about one party or a particular group, their own party or group inevitably steps in it up to their ankles. It will be interesting to see how this story plays out. In my opinion, it's a shame that either party has to resort to such low tactics, especially at a local level where individual votes really can make a difference.

 

LOL rlm--we cross-posted. It just took me longer to get mine posted because I looked for non-Fox sources.

 

When they plead guilty, does it really make a difference which news says they pled guilty? When maybe in one case here.

 

To me, it doesn't. To you, it doesn't. However, I find that finding sources that can't be discredited on their face goes a long way to furthering discussion--or to making a point--in a lot of cases. If I'm discussing the ills of the Humane Society of the United States with people, I don't use the Center for Consumer Freedom or the National Animal Interest Alliance as sources, since they're considered biased. When discussing conservatives/Republicans here, I try to avoid Fox sources like the plague. Same difference.

 

Just for the hell of it, I checked out all 20 or so accusations against Obama in one of rlm's posts. While I couldn't verify or disprove a few of them, the vast majority were RW lies spread by people like rlm on sites like this. It's what he does. So he posted a long list crimes ACORN has committed, a long list created by RW bloggers and spread around as truth, because he knows ignorant people will rally behind those lies and spread them around to other equally ignorant people. It's blatently obvious, and only a fool would believe those accusations are true simply because someone posted them.

 

Just for the hell of it, I checked out the first 3 and found 20+ sources for each. So just which one did you find to be "RW lies"? My guess is this is going to be another of those cases were the facts get in the way of the left propaganda.

 

So.... you posted the accusations as gospel without checking them first? That's typical, but it is interesting that you'd admit that. As to 20+ sources each? That's no surprize, if you think about it. Your own post, a post you've admittedly said was not researched before posting, is a source, so 20+ of those on the internet isn't hard to come by.

Knowing the difference between trustworthy sources and non-trustworthy sources though, knowing how to recognize the differences between them, is essential in finding the truth of a statement. 20+ non-researched sources is in the non-trustworthy catagory.

It's a shame there is so much disinformation to wade through in order to find the truth, even I have a difficult time finding reliable, trustworthy sources... I can imagine how difficult it is for someone who is less willing to put in the effort to find the truth and has less abilities to recognize it when they do. In general though, non-partisan opinions are more likely than not to have truthful assertions in them.

While few people are truly non-partian, quite a few are neutral enough to be trustworthy... but you yourself have to be like-minded in order to see it, and that is also difficult for most people to become. Eh, it is what it is. Anyone truly neutral, or near enough, already understands that so I wish them luck... others who think the idea is bs can **** off lol

 

Trustworthy sources? Yeah, anything that you think isn't. Again, I will ask you to name just one you found to be lies. Name two if it makes you feel better. But just saying that they are lies because you say they are lies only works with your fellow left wing spinsters

 

What's my motivation? I have no reason to comply with your request as it is my opinion that you are a known liar, and willingly spread lies. I don't respect you for that reason, and that is more than enough reason to not honor your request.

 

Motivation? Same reason you have for posting anything here. You are trying to convince others you are correct/convert them to you point. How is that working for you with your empty posts?

 

Why should I care what a confirmed liar thinks of me? As for trying to convince others that I'm correct... don't be an idiot. It's insulting to the people you say I'm trying to convince to say they can't think for themselves.