Aw, common-- it's just sex. You're not supposed to complain about law-breaking and corruption if it involves sex. Didn't you learn anything during the '90s? Besides; I bet it was the Big Insurance companies that put those two up to it, 'cause they're all racist.
In addition to the post above I will say that all of you should be proud of ensuring that an organization whose three main goals are to find affordable housing for minorities, raise the minimum wage and assist minorities in voting has lost funding and any small amount of power they had before any of this started.
A tip of the cap for a great win for the side whose central purpose is to maintain their lifestyles as opposed to improving anyone's life. Congratulations!
Mark:
"In addition to the post above I will say that all of you should be proud of ensuring that an organization whose three main goals are to find affordable housing for minorities, raise the minimum wage and assist minorities in voting has lost funding and any small amount of power they had before any of this started. "
Actually from what I have read, their main "reason d'tre" was blackmailing corporations, paying-off democrat-politicians who voted them more taxpayer dollars, creating fraudulent votes for those same politicians, and raising money to pay the exorbitant salaries to the CEO's of their 200 or so connected organizations.
But that's just me; and shortly a whole lot of others as well.
In addition to the post above I will say that all of you should be proud of ensuring that an organization whose three main goals
Goals?
We've been through this time and again. Hurts being in that radical fringe 12% of Democrats, doesn't it?
Goals don't equal results. The best goals, the best intentions don't matter. Nor would you seriously consider that the stated goals aren't the actual goals. That's far above your ability.
Yes, I'm damnned proud that a corrupt organization - one we've been arguing with you for years as to the corruption - obvious to us, not to you - is getting exposed, examined, and as more light is brought to bear, more roaches and rats are scurrying.
The fact that you're not, that you're ok with an organization under indictment in 1/2 the states (right now) that it operates in, that it obviously promotes lawbreaking, tax dodging - not paying their "fair share", and gaming and ripping off the system demonstrates who's really out of reality.
Or who's promoting slavery. 5 offices - so far - had no problem with outright, no bones about it, SLAVERY.
Slavery, Mark. What you whine about, these 5 (so far) offices encouraged. Chained down. Made to serve as sex slaves.
And you're fine with that.
You whine about your mortgage, but you're good with young girls chained down and raped.
Yeah, your Wilson comments are similarly unhinged.
Go back - read the old comments - who predicted this? You? Or "us"?
By the way, I've met Joe Wilson. He's not a racist. He does, however, eat mayonnaise straight from the jar.
And even more importantly, he was right. The truth of which has been adequately demonstrated in spades... Yet you impart a sinister motive and GOAL to him, and denounce him.
But, Mark, what of his goals? What of his goals to protect America?
Oh, just your usual idiotic hypocrisy. You've been late, Frank!
What, have you been out raping sex slaves?
Or throwing Javier under more buses? What of poor Javier? Hey, maybe he can go get some help from Acorn... Does he have a 13-15 year old daughter?
Doofus boy, one of the primary functions of ACORN is engaging in voter fraud. Another was going to be fudging the fuck out of the census next year. Them getting de-funded and off the census staff is a Damned Fine Thing.
The glaring spotlight of publicity (see Heinlein, Robert A.) has embarrassed the living shit out of most of the Dimocrat party, rightly so. But it didn't embarrass you, and after 23 days of silence, you hadda come tell us how unembarrassed you are. See why we find you so loathsome?
That's the bottom line, Mark. You're okay with an organization that condones slavery as long as it fits your politics. This is hardly surprising, considering you're part of a party 42% of whom think our last President should be tried for high treason and conspiracy to commit the murder of 2,996 American civilians.
Entire cultures do go insane sometimes, I don't guess I should be surprised that 42% of a political party can.
You're so fucking blind that you can't see the possibility that we hope to improve the lot of the poor as well, only we plan to do it without stealing from anyone. Are you so goddamn jealous of those who have more than you that you'd rather see them torn down to raise those with little, rather than simply moving the entire fucking curve up?
I am so goddamn sick of you self-righteous assholes who insist that our only goal is self-gratification. What the fuck good does it do to pull poor people out of poverty if they have no guarantee that they'll get to keep any of it if someone lower on the scrotum pole comes walking along with their hand stuck out?
We don't hate your retarded social engineering schemes because we hate poor people. We hate your retarded social engineering schemes because (among other things) we think they'll actively do a worse job of elevating the poor than our free-market ideas.
No, Kevin. I'm not. Of course they should have been fired. As I am reminded here quite often, though, generalizations are always a bad thing. If you think that ACORN as a whole promotes underage prostitution, then you must also believe that everything that Michael Moore says is true, right?
DJ, your point regarding voter fraud has been proven to be completely wrong by factcheck.
Perl, nice screed. It's nice to know that The Wrecking Crew's ranks are growing.
I am so goddamn sick of you self-righteous assholes who insist that our only goal is self-gratification.
I'm just plain sick of ANYONE on the left who decides that throwing out guesses as to WHY I believe what I do is a fine substitute for engaging the ideas, themselves.
No, you know what? I DO hate the poor. In fact, I wish people below the poverty line didn't even EXIST!
"DJ, your point regarding voter fraud has been proven to be completely wrong by factcheck."
Teacher boy, my point regarding voter fraud has been proven to be completely right by convictions of ACORN workers for vote fraud in various state and federal courts.
Go to google.com. Search for "Acorn voter fraud convictions". Read. Take your time; there's lots to read.
Goddamn, little boy, do you really expect anyone to take you seriously?
"Nevertheless, the allegations are still floating around the blogosphere and talk shows, where ACORN is being described as a criminal enterprise that sends partisans to the polls to vote multiple times using the names of people long dead. We’ve continued to monitor the various cases against and investigations of ACORN workers, and so far there’s been no evidence that fraudulent votes were cast as a result of anything they did."
"Several ACORN canvassers have been found guilty of faking registration forms and others are being investigated. But the evidence that has surfaced so far shows they faked forms to get paid for work they didn’t do, not to stuff ballot boxes."
How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when, as of yet, you can't see how wrong you are? Do your homework, asshat, and try not to let your ideology trip you up along the way.
"Several ACORN canvassers have been found guilty of faking registration forms and others are being investigated. But the evidence that has surfaced so far shows they faked forms to get paid for work they didn't do, not to stuff ballot boxes."
So, let me see if I understand your point, Gríma son of Gálmód. It's okay with you, and by extension should be okay with everyone, that an organization that receives taxpayer dollars has a sizable number of employees who commit actual fraud, and some in at least five cities who are willing to be complicit in tax fraud and the import of underage prostitutes.
Just in case you're slower than usual today, I'll say it again: It's okay with you, and by extension should be okay with everyone, that an organization that receives taxpayer dollars has a sizable number of employees who commit actual fraud, and some in at least five cities who are willing to be complicit in tax fraud and the import of underage prostitutes.
Because at least they didn't sell drugs. [/everybodyhateschris]
That about sum it up, Wormtongue?
There's a little thing called character, Gríma, and You. Haven't. Got. Any.
"How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when, as of yet, you can't see how wrong you are? Do your homework, asshat, and try not to let your ideology trip you up along the way."
Sigh ...
How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when, as of yet, you can't see how wrong you are? Do your howework, asshat, and try not to let your ideology trip you up along the way.
Y'see, you've popped up with a two-fer today!
Once again, you respond with your Standard Response #7, the "Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin' camera?" response. Nothing is valid, no matter what the evidence for it is, unless it squares with the conclusions you've already jumped to.
and
Once again, you respond with your Standard Response #9, the "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response. You simply assert that the other side is what you don't like your side being accused of.
Only you would declare that convictions for voter fraud aren't actually evidence of voter fraud.
Well, well, well. Brave Sir Robin is back, but now he's running around naked in another part of the woods.
I can't even taking him seriously anymore.
So ACORN employees don't even bat an eye at sex slavery of underage girls. Not only that, they know just what to do right off the top of their heads! They didn't even have to do any research! This means that it's a common occurrence!
If it was just one office, then the "rogue employees" excuse might have some merit. But this was in every single office they visited in widely separated parts of the country! That's not rogue employees, that's fucking SYSTEMIC!!!
And Marky is defending actual SLAVERY!!! Not some asinine "wage slave" if you squint your eyes and peek through the right filters equivalence, but honest-to-God, chains, beatings, and forced sex, real, we've-been-trying-to-stop-it-for-more-than-150-years SLAVERY of young defenseless girls! He's goddamn DEFENDING an organization that SYSTEMICALLY assists in helping these scum of the earth EVADE detection, prosecution and punishment. That's an Accessory To The Crime by any standard I can think of.
Marky, you claim to be a champion of the poor. But these young girls stuck in sex slavery are the poorest of the poor. But you're looking the other way and defending an organization that Helps Victimize Them! How can you even look yourself in the mirror?!?
And I haven't even touched on their voter fraud (STEALING ELECTIONS!) and the "affordable housing" crap which led to inevitable defaults which directly caused our current recession.
Here's a hint Marky, if you want to keep your job, don't let the school board know that you support White Slavery.
"Only you would declare that convictions for voter fraud aren't actually evidence of voter fraud."
Only someone as blinded by a maniacal ideology like you can't understand the law...even a simple one like this. The facts are on my side. Read the links as I am sure you haven't. You are wrong.
Ed, nice straw man. So are you saying that you believe that ACORN as a whole supports underage prostitution and human trafficking? If you do, then I guess all of your arguments against Michael Moore are out the window as well.
Only someone as blinded by a maniacal ideology like you
... Says the "teacher" who says a W-2 job or a mortgage is "slavery" and evil, but is fine with teenage girls chained to beds and raped - as long as it's DEMOCRATS making the untaxed profits. And that we're billed for any health care their Democratic slavemasters takes them in for. Especially their abortions and birth control. In that care, that's fine. Nowhere near as bad as someone ALMOST SPITTING IN SOMEONE'S FACE AND MAKING THEM CRY!
I think you really need to step back and re-evaluate who is blinded here. Thankfully for us, you won't. You'll lie some more, you'll misuse some words, refuse to admit you don't know what they mean, link to some screeds you don't understand, then run away and deny you've done all of that.
I'll try and explain this in terms small enough that you'll understand - it will be hard, since you demonstrably don't have a 5th grade reading comphrension.
But I'll try.
Ed and I have pointed out proof that multiple ACORN offices have had NO PROBLEM with teenage slavery. Note, this is slavery. Not what you're calling slavery, but what's described to the ACORN people. (And we don't know how pervasive this is - other than the evidence that so far 5 have immediately assisted with tax evasion and hiding a criminal enterprise, and! explicitly condoned sexual slavery of teenagers.
It is not a strawman to refer to this as actual hard proof that ACORN is employing people who are "blinded by ideology" and for whom Democrat votes and abortion are more important than actual slavery. 2 people spent $1300 and have uncovered 5 offices - that we know of! ACORN's denials have been proven to be lies, as they've fired the people involved, denied that it was a systemic problem, and have now shut down for a "investigation" (read, find out how bad the real news is).
Your "counter" (which is quotes because it really wasn't) of ACORN as a whole supports underage prostitution and human trafficking?is a strawman, because that's not what Ed said, and you're saying that UNLESS every. single. employee. is so corrupted and yes, I'll say it, evil, then you cannot criticize the ones who are proven to be so.
That is a strawman, Mark, and it's just pure Markadelphiasm that you'd USE a strawman right after you dismiss Ed for using one. When he didn't.
And then say that we're the ones blinded by ideology, and refuse to admit your lies and deception. Chained. To. A. Bed. Versus a W-2 job.
According to your arguments here, chained to a bed and raped is "no big deal", but yelled at and spit on is "slavery".
U-J, I don't think Marky's statement is a straw man. Here's why:
1) These ACORN employees did not have to do any research to know what to do. That means these were not new situations to them.
2) They acted in favor of underage prostitution in every case.
3) Their actions were largely consistent among 5 different offices in completely different parts of the country.
This indicates some degree of coordination between the offices. This coordination is highly unlikely without the involvement of upper management.
So while I doubt that ACORN actively solicits prostitution and human trafficking, they do support it by actively helping those engaged in such activities to avoid government intervention.
For the record, I also doubt that you would find training manuals or anyone giving such advice since this story broke. The word has almost certainly gone out that this is not to happen again. (Typical behavior for a criminal organization: "It's fine with us, but whatever you do, don't get caught.")
ACORN faked work records for work it had been paid to do.
That is fraud by any standard.
They also get tax dollars (I'll wait while you go look up "fungible," Wormtongue).
You claim that since there's no evidence -- more accurately, someone claims there's no evidence -- that vote fraud occurred, everything is hunky-dory among the Twelve Percent, who, by the Miracle of Magical Thinking, know and express the Will of the People.
You're reading Mark's comment and reading more into it.
Mark said that only if ALL of ACORN is good with it, is it legitimate criticism. Notice he won't talk about the ones we know are willing to assist in this - and how many question it raises about the OTHER tax advice and "housing assistance" they've been giving. (In everything - they had no problem telling people to lie on the forms and lie and keep from paying taxes.)
That is a strawman. It's a misdirection that allows him to dismiss your argument (setting it on fire) with the claim that "surely" not EVERYONE feels that way.
This from the guy who's talking about the latent and overt racism - including from Wilson - in which he's in only 12% of DEMOCRATS. But there's no problem is assigning racism to everybody who opposes Obama.
His first claim was a strawman: an organization whose three main goals are to find affordable housing for minorities, raise the minimum wage and assist minorities in voting
(and nonsensical, since wage laws - which ACORN doesn't pay, and has been cited multiple times for failing to pay their people min wage! - increase unemployment.)
In other words, ignore the proof and only study intent. And actually "intent".
Mark, by the way.. what was the "goal" of the 2nd Ku Klux Klan? The Nazi Party? If you're going to only use goals, then you have to do that across the board!
Okay, that's fine U-J. I just read that single sentence at face value.
But I've been thinking more about this. I doubt that ACORN had anything explicitly support prostitution and sexual slavery in any of their training. What seems more likely is just an all pervasive attitude of "defending" the poor against "power" (which would include "the rich" and government), no matter what.
In practice, this "no matter what" attitude seems to include illegal activities in its mandate. So if the poor can't actually afford the house, ACORN still takes their side, including breaking into houses which the bank had to take back and resell to cover the loan which wasn't being paid. This also apparently includes helping to avoid paying taxes, covering up prostitution, "voter registration" to push the vote in the direction "the poor would vote". It also wouldn't surprise me if they helped cover up drug dealing, theft and fencing of stolen goods, and gang activity.
In other words, it's an attitude of "the poor are always right. Always."
Unix, read Frank's book and I challenge you to prove him wrong point by point. Thus far, the only criticism here that has been offered is that he is a "hack" and a "liar." Alright, how exactly?
His assessment of the right is accurate considering the facts and the results of the actions from those facts. Perl's comment above thoroughly proves this.
"Only someone as blinded by a maniacal ideology like you can't understand the law...even a simple one like this. The facts are on my side. Read the links as I am sure you haven't. You are wrong."
This is like shooting fish in a barrel, but here goes ...
I read the links, teacher boy. You laid your own trap and I just let you walk into it. Now I'm gonna 'splain it to you.
First, we have definitions:
fraud
n. a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain n. deliberate deception or cheating intended to gain an advantage n. an act of such deception
Thus "voter fraud" or "vote fraud" (I use the terms interchangeably herein) is an act of deception that is practiced in order that votes may be fraudulently cast or fraudulently counted. Note carefully that one can commit voter fraud without casting a fraudulent vote, for example by falsely registering a name on the voter rolls such that someone else may fraudulently cast a vote by impersonating the named person. Such is a common practice in Chicago, where President Obamateur used to advise and defend ACORN.
Now, the statements that I made, which you took exception to, are (verbatim):
"Doofus boy, one of the primary functions of ACORN is engaging in voter fraud." [emphasis added]
and
"Teacher boy, my point regarding voter fraud has been proven to be completely right by convictions of ACORN workers for vote fraud in various state and federal courts."
Note that I did NOT accuse any employee of ACORN of casting a fraudulent vote, nor did I imply or suggest that any had done so. I stated that ACORN engages in voter fraud and that ACORN workers had been convicted of vote fraud. The statement is demonstrably true; their convictions are a matter of public record, and I showed you how you could verify it for yourself.
That was the trap, and you walked right into it.
Now, I quote the following from the first of the two FactCheck.org articles that you linked to (again, verbatim):
"Neither ACORN nor its employees have been found guilty of, or even charged with, casting fraudulent votes."
Golly. What a straw man. Again, I didn't accuse them of casting fraudulent votes.
To continue with that article:
"What a McCain-Palin Web ad calls "voter fraud" is actually voter registration fraud. Several ACORN canvassers have been found guilty of faking registration forms and others are being investigated."
The article admits that ACORN canvassers were found guilty of committing voter fraud, teacher boy. Thus, the first FactCheck.org article you cited confirms the truth of my statements.
So, we have yet another example of your Standard Response #6, the "How 'bout a little fire, Scarecrow?" response. You have deliberately missed the point, laying on yet another straw man, even as you accuse Ed of doing the same.
Now, let's look at the other statement that I made (again, verbatim):
"Another was going to be fudging the fuck out of the census next year."
Note the careful choice of words and the intentional phrasing: "... was going to be ..." This was not a statement of fact, it was a prediction of what would have happened had not something intervened to prevent it. We will never know whether or not the prediction would have been correct because it will never be tested.
The second article of the two FactCheck.org articles that you linked to discusses this, only to dispute the prediction. It is the the author's opinion, nothing more. Yet again, we have another example of your Standard Response #3, the "I'm not alone" response. You state your opinion, and then you point to the writings of other people who share your opinion as if that makes your opinion fact.
You hypocritical halfwit, you're playing with grownups here, and you have neither the intellectual ability to understand the language used nor the honesty to use it accurately.
Unix, read Frank's book and I challenge you to prove him wrong point by point.
You. Wouldn't. Know. When. I. Did.
Period. I don't say "if" I say WHEN. Because I can. But you can't even understand the basics of "strawman" "verbatim", much less comparisons!
Thus far, the only criticism here that has been offered is that he is a "hack" and a "liar." Alright, how exactly?
And it wasn't from me, you'll note. (And I think you're wrong, but that's a minor point. I'm pretty sure Frank's been eviscerated here, but you couldn't understand that.)
His assessment of the right is accurate
Says the man who calls a salary slavery, and a house payment slavery, but chaining teenagers to beds and having men rape them and evade taxes to be laudable.
The rest of us will take that into consideration as to your description of "accuracy". (Protip: "Accuracy" doesn't mean "What Sounds Good To Mark", but at this point it's one of your least egregious misuses.)
Perl's comment above thoroughly proves this.
No, it doesn't. All it does is prove you're blinded by ideology. His comment was exactly the opposite, and in fact a decent description that should allow you to understand - if you weren't blinded.
You don't have the will to bend reality. And no matter how much you mangle concepts and words, you won't drag us into your insanity with you.
"Do your homework, asshat, and try not to let your ideology trip you up along the way."
Well that's the pot calling the kettle black.
I lost most of my respect for 'Factcheck' when their own president admitted to preconceived opinions in his articles and fudged several of their own 'factchecks' on your messiah but never updated their articles.
Now over 30 ACORN employees in numerous states have been convicted of fraud (yes Fraud) and hundreds more are still under investigation. 'Factcheck' tries to diminish this number by referring to it as 'several'.
Five separate offices not only didn't blink an eye at supporting highly illegal activities including using underage girls as prostitutes but actively assisted the reporters by giving them tips on how to get them here.
A tip of the cap for a great win for the side whose central purpose is to maintain their lifestyles as opposed to improving anyone's life. (emphasis added)
Okay, Mr. Awakened Giant, here's Question Number One: What portion of our lifestyles are we not entitled, in your view, to maintain? Please be specific.
Question Number Two: Since you're so awakened and gigantic and all, it should be trivial for you to come and take from each of us whatever amount you've determined is appropriate from Question Number One, solely on your own convictions and using your own resources.
DJ, after reading your post above several times I...am at a loss. While I am certain you will descend into your usual personal attacks and hyperbolic vitriol, your back and forth regarding voter fraud gave me whiplash. The factcheck site plainly states that ACORN has not engaged in voter fraud (i.e. stuffing ballot boxes) and that some employees had been investigated for improper voter registration. Some had been convicted. Their impetus for doing so was to make money for work not done. It was not a systemic drive by ACORN itself.
I suspect that since you have already decided they are guilty and, like most on the right, have to bend the facts to fit your story, you will never see this.
Ken, many corporations of this country have enjoyed bending and sometimes even breaking the law with little or no government interference. These same corporations have been very successful (through buying people of both parties off in Congress) in lobbying the country to believe that the government is evil, they are pure and perfect, and to question otherwise means we will descend into mass murder similar to Joe Stalin salad days. See Frank's book.
These people have set up a system that largely doesn't resemble capitalism at all. It's corporatism or corporate fascism, if you will, and that is the lifestyle to which they are not entitled. If you have earned money through honest competition and hard work, you are correct in trying to fight for that and avoid government and bureaucratic entanglements. If you have flaunted the law, lied to investors, ignored your board of directors (or, in most cases, bought them off along with your local politicians) then you shouldn't be allowed dick.
"What portion of our lifestyles are we not entitled, in your view, to maintain? Please be specific."
Here is what Gríma son of Gálmód answered:
"Ken, many corporations of this country have enjoyed bending and sometimes even breaking the law with little or no government interference. These same corporations have been very successful (through buying people of both parties off in Congress) in lobbying the country to believe that the government is evil, they are pure and perfect, and to question otherwise means we will descend into mass murder similar to Joe Stalin salad days. See Frank's book."
Yep, that's some anthrax there.
Now, you might try answering the question I asked, thou awakened north end of a southbound Apatosaurus.
PS--The paragraph following the one I quoted does not serve as an answer, being neither specific nor addressed to the people you originally addressed -- us.
While I am certain you will descend into your usual personal attacks and hyperbolic vitriol,
Except for the part where DJ actually presents you facts that you ignore. The vitriol is just spice to the Markadelphia Ignorance Entree.
You, not surprisingly, are ignoring that you have decried, insulted LabRat and others, and insisted that a voluntary contract and W-2 job, and a voluntary contract and mortage are evil slavery, but yet you're defending a group who (barely) blinked an eye at actual, real slavery.
And then told them how to lie on their taxes and get credits.
Their impetus
HOW DO YOU KNOW? That was their stated impetus. Stated. However, they have also been documented stating that they want to make the voting system collapse.
Yet again, your logic and thought process are found very wanting.
for doing so was to make money for work not done. It was not a systemic drive by ACORN itself.
.... So you're good with fraud. Do a google search on "Denial of Service" Because that's also part of what I think is the problem. It's backed up by the facts, as well as the simple fact that Every investigation of ACORN's efforts have resulted in the exact same findings.
I suspect that since you have already decided they are guilty
No, that was for the Juries to decide. Which they almost always have. Where, other than their words, words that you refuse to listen to from any on the "right", can you find any defense? You claim we don't have facts - and ignore the literally hundreds of them, and then attack us personally - while saying that's what we do.
You're pretty much "Opposite Man", there, Ralph.
and, like most on the right, have to bend the facts to fit your story, you will never see this.
... Says the man minimizing rape, slavery, fraud, rendering the voting registration systems ineffective ...
You really are this pathetically bad at thinking, aren't you?
Alright, Ken. I thought what I was saying was pretty obvious but how about this?
Bill MacGuire's vacation homes.
If that isn't specific enough, I'm sure I can find something else.
To further my above points, there is this quote. See if any of you can guess who wrote it...without google cheating:)
"In capitalism as envisioned by its leading lights, including Adam Smith and Alfred Marshall, you need a moral foundation in order for free markets to work. And when a company fails, it fails. It doesn't get bailed out using trillions of dollars of taxpayer money. What we have right now is Corporatism. It's welfare for the rich. It's the government picking winners and losers. It's Wall Street having their taxpayer-funded cake and eating it too. It's socialized losses and privatized gains."
So, the question is...what mechanism is that moral foundation?
So after Mark ignores a bunch of arguments that he ran away from because the facts disagreed with him, he's now "clarifying" with guilt by association like:
I thought what I was saying was pretty obvious but how about this?
Bill MacGuire's vacation homes.
Notice that he doesn't, however, explain what's wrong with them. He can't. All he can do is point to them (After someone else pointed them out to him) and screech.
Mark, that's not clarifying anything, or being "obvious".
What's obvious is that you're defending an organization that has - at least a large number of offices - who have or would assist slavers.
This after you called a W-2 job and/or a Mortgage "slavery". And Labrat called you out on it.
You've lost "clarity" here, and you're not going to get it back by backhanded personal attacks, indirect references, and quoting people who you like, but yet can't defend their argument.
Want clarity?
Let me explain:
"How about those ACORN offices, huh?" isn't clear.
You Are Defending Slavery while calling us slavers.
Meanwhile, we're not supposed to have noticed that you moved the goalposts; of course, having been fed them first, you had to shit them out, but that's about par for the course for you.
"So, the question is...what mechanism is that moral foundation?"
Only someone bereft of a moral compass of his own has to ask. You cannot imagine morality without a badge and gun to enforce it, because in the darkest corner of your wizened soul, you know you need that guy with the badge and gun to keep from acting like the stimulus-response animal you are...
...and that you therefore imagine everyone else is.
So, the question is...what mechanism is that moral foundation?
Well, Mark, it's obviously not GOVERNMENT. Since it's Barack Obama and the Congress who've decided who is and who isn't "too big to fail." It is they who, as noted, are picking "the winners and losers."
And Obama was supposed to be the Second Coming, was He not? Both houses of Congress are dominated by Democrats, are they not?
And yet you tell us "It'll work if only the RIGHT PEOPLE ARE IN CHARGE!"
Wasn't Obama supposed to be "the One"?
What happened?
Now, a blast from the past:
(F)or the person who is not under the hypnotic psycho-spiritual spell of contemporary liberalism, it is strikingly devoid of actual religious wisdom or real ideas. As such, it is driven by vague, spiritually infused ideals and feelings, such as "sticking up for the little guy," or "war is not the answer." On the other hand, conservatism is not so much based on ideas, but on simply observing what works, and then generalizing from there. It is actually refreshingly free of dogma, and full of dynamic tension. For example, at the heart of conservatism is an ongoing, unresolvable dialectic between freedom and virtue. In other words, there is a bedrock belief in the idea that free markets are the best way to allocate scarce resources and to create wealth and prosperity for all, but a frank acknowledgment that, without a virtuous populace, the system may produce a self-centered, materialistic citizenry living in a sort of degenerate, "pitiable comfort." Thus, there is an ongoing, unresolvable tension between the libertarian and traditional wings of the movement.
There is no such dynamic tension in liberalism. Rather, it is a top-down dogma that is not dictated by what works, but by how liberals would like reality to be. This is why liberalism must be enforced with the mechanism of political correctness, in order to preempt or punish those who deviate from liberal dogma, and see what they are not supposed to see.
And yet, here you are, still driven by vague, spiritually infused ideals and feelings.
I've *asked* Mark to *explain* McGuire. He wandered off. Not ignoring me, oh, no, Mark would never do that, just... not bothering to answer that point.
Mark can't explain. It's one of his memorized chanting talking points. Nixon will come out next.
But don't bring up the NEA illegally directing grants to propaganda.. After all, it's not illegal if Obama demands it.
Yes it is 'Corporatism' Mark. It's been going on for decades and is being continued by your messiah as he caters to every special interest he denounced during his campaign.
What 'moral compass' was he following when he through the GLBT demographic under the bus after promising to repeal 'don't ask don't tell'? Or when he promised to to not hire lobbyists? Or even way back to promising to use public financing if his opponent did?
But of course I'm asking for a definition of 'moral compass' from someone who defends an organization which has had over 2 dozen people convicted for election fraud and promoted child slavery.
Alright, how about Joe Cassano? Sandy Weill? Jimmy Cayne? Angelo Mozilo? John Thain? Dick Fuld? Ken Lewis? I don't know about you but they are not fucking entitled to their lifestyle either.
I don't see any sort of solutions (i.e. mechanism for a moral compass) coming from your side....except the blank gaze and heroin addicted like moan of "free market."
Thirdpower, if you believe that ACORN engages in election fraud and promoting child slavery, then you must accept Michael Moore's films as gospel.
...they are not fucking entitled to their lifestyle either.
Ah, yes. Vague, spiritually infused ideals and feelings.
As Ken put it, "Since you're so awakened and gigantic and all, it should be trivial for you to come and take from each of (them) whatever amount you've determined is appropriate from Question Number One, solely on your own convictions and using your own resources."
Well?
And it's pretty obvious The Won won't be doing it, either, even though His party runs the entire show.
It's pretty clear to me that he meant all of us in the original post. He didn't name names, he just said, as is his collective-identity reflex wont, "side whose central purpose is to maintain their lifestyles."
My central purpose is to live my life and take care of my family as I see fit, without using force or fraud against anyone else. That is my lifestyle, which Gríma son of Gálmód has characterized as being inferior to the goals of ACORN and, by extension, the "progressive" left.
I withdraw my previous statement about Gríma not having a moral compass. You have a moral compass all right, Wormtongue: it's the moral compass of a Solomon Islands headhunter.
But the latter is a lot more honest about what he wants from me, and wouldn't fold up like a cheap suit when I called him on it.
The formula I used ("on your own convictions and using your own resources"), and that Kevin quoted, originated, as far as I know, with Billy Beck, as consistent a moral philosopher as I have ever seen on these here Intartubes.
"DJ, after reading your post above several times I...am at a loss."
Of course you are.
"The factcheck site plainly states that ACORN has not engaged in voter fraud (i.e. stuffing ballot boxes) and that some employees had been investigated for improper voter registration."
"i.e." is an abbreviation for Latin id est, which means "that is". Thus you assert that "voter fraud" means "stuffing ballot boxes", that a person engages in voter fraud ONLY by putting a fraudulent ballot in a ballot box.
You have tried to define the words of MY statement, "voter fraud" and "vote fraud", as meaning "stuffing ballot boxes".
So, again, we have another example of your Standard Response #8, The "Humpty Dumpty" response. You simply assert that my words mean what you say they mean. Thus, no matter what I write, it means that you are correct. This is also known as the "We don't need no stinking dictionary!" response.
As I patiently and clearly explained to you, there are many ways to commit voter fraud without stuffing ballot boxes:
"Note carefully that one can commit voter fraud without casting a fraudulent vote, for example by falsely registering a name on the voter rolls such that someone else may fraudulently cast a vote by impersonating the named person." [emphasis added]
In plain English, a person who fraudulently registers a person on voter rolls commits voter fraud by doing so. This does not involve said person fraudulently putting a ballot in a ballot box. You are at a loss, teacher boy, because you either do not understand or do not agree with those last two sentences.
"What a McCain-Palin Web ad calls "voter fraud" is actually voter registration fraud. Several ACORN canvassers have been found guilty of faking registration forms ..."
That article specifically states that there is a type of voter fraud called "voter registration fraud" and that some ACORN canvassers (i.e. "workers") "have been found guilty" of it. You would have us believe that the crime they were convicted of cannot happen. YOU HAVE TRIED TO DEFINE IT OUT OF EXISTENCE.
Again, we have another example of your Standard Response #7, the "Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin' camera?" response. Nothing is valid, no matter what the evidence for it is, unless it squares with the conclusions you've already jumped to.
Now, I stated earlier that
"one of the primary functions of ACORN is engaging in voter fraud."
Why did I state that? Because courts all over the country are and have been hammering their workers for engaging in voter fraud.
Don't think so? Again, go google "Acorn voter fraud convictions" like I suggested. It comes up with 345,000 hits. Go count how many ACORN workers have been convicted in how many states for committing precisely the kind of voter fraud that the article you linked to describes and that I explained as an example. Count also how many ACORN workers have been indicted in how many states for voter fraud of all kinds.
I call engaging in voter fraud one of the primary functions of ACORN because that is what it appears to be.
But you don't agree because FactCheck.org says so.
Yet again, we have another example of your Standard Response #3, the "I'm not alone" response. You state your opinion, and then you point to the writings of other people who share your opinion, as if the request were about votes instead of verifiable facts, logic, and reasoned thought.
"A tip of the cap for a great win for the side whose central purpose is to maintain their lifestyles as opposed to improving anyone's life."
Been puzzling over this one for some time now.
Kindly explain, teacher boy, whose lot in life should I value improving more than I value improving my own lot in life, and why should I do so? Be specific, and justify your reasoning.
If you have flaunted the law, lied to investors, ignored your board of directors (or, in most cases, bought them off along with your local politicians) then you shouldn't be allowed dick.
And yet, Tim Geithner and Charlie Rangel, ripping off the very government programs you cherish so by cheating on their taxes, get committee chairmanships and cabinet posts as rewards, and that gets a pass from you.
In fact, it seems that any corruption in the public sector gets a mild response from you (if any at all), so long as it's the corruption of a liberal Democrat. If Wal Mart or Exxon did half the stuff the Democrat party and ACORN do as a matter of routine, you'd be foaming at the mouth. And yet you defend them...
I was doing a little research on Rules for Radicals and found this page with quotes from the book. These two struck me as sounding awfully descriptive:
"A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of communism."
pg. 10
"An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth -- truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing.... To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations...."
pp. 10-11
This commentary by the page owner (I think) also struck me as interesting:
"Like Alinsky, Mikhail Gorbachev followed Gramsci, not Lenin. In fact, Gramsci aroused Stalins's wrath by suggesting that Lenin's revolutionary plan wouldn't work in the West. Instead the primary assault would be on Biblical absolutes and Christian values, which must be crushed as a social force before the new face of Communism could rise and flourish."
Ken: Okay, Mr. Awakened Giant, here's Question Number One: What portion of our lifestyles are we not entitled, in your view, to maintain? Please be specific.
That portion provided for by coercion, of course.
*sigh*
The funny thing is, Mark, you seem to be right on the cusp of understanding the problem. Yes, it is a bad thing when the government indulges in Corporatism.
But the problem is even larger than the government turning a blind eye when corporations break the law--the government actually grants specific laws to specific corporate players.
Hell, Mark, the entire concept embodied by the word "corporation", as it exists as a legal standard in our society, is an absolute fabrication of the government. The legal abuses that corporations get away with are a side-effect of the government having granted them special rights in the first place.
Now, notice anything about what I've said here? The base of all of this woe isn't the corporations, it's the government, intentionally making the playing field unlevel. You want to know what works hardest to "keep the poor down"? It's the government, making it more difficult than it needs to be for poor people to lift themselves out of poverty. Making laws that benefit certain players on the top end of the field.
You ask what mechanism is that moral foundation that keeps the free-market running cleanly, and the answer is: the free-market. The government has all the guns in this equation. When you remove their influence from the market, the other players in the game have to gain their customers and therefore profits via voluntary transactions. The absence of coercion is what makes the free-market the free market in the first place.
Government isn't the solution to keeping the free market free, government is the poison preventing the free market from being free.
So Mark's still up to his usual tricks, and more obtuse than ever? But I think I see the edifice starting to crack, just a little.
I can't tell you with what delight I read an impassioned defense of an organization for actually committing one type of fraud instead of another. ("How dare you, sir! Why, this man doesn't beat up little old ladies in their homes. He beats them up in the street!")
Instead the primary assault would be on Biblical absolutes and Christian values, which must be crushed as a social force before the new face of Communism could rise and flourish.
Compare with this observation by Victoria Jackson (of SNL fame):
My high school was Christian, so we were aware of spiritual warfare, invisible enemies. We were taught that the 2nd Amendment, the right to “bear arms” would prevent a military takeover. Instead, they said, the Communists would try to destroy us “from within” by encouraging sin in our youth. Promiscuous Sex, Drugs, Rock ‘n Roll, and a disrespect for authority would render our citizens helpless and weak. (Rap and it’s profanity hadn’t been invented yet.) This subtle, invisible, inward takeover was more powerful. Apathy, lack of education, lack of a family unit...lack of God.
Useful idiots like Mark notwithstanding, the other side knows the game well. It's about damn time we turned the tables on them.
Sarah! I haven't seen you for a while. I was starting to wonder if you had left us.
A while back in one of the comment threads, the topic came up of "How do we win?" I wish I had had time to pursue that discussion, because it never really got rolling. But it did occur to me that there are several questions that need to be answered before "How?" can be answered:
What do you consider to be a win?
What do you consider to be a loss?
Where is the dividing line between the two?
What is your ultimate ideal of a win?
What is an acceptable—i.e., marginal—win?
If losing is unavoidable, what is the ultimate loss and what are you willing to give up to avoid that ultimate loss?
Ever since that thread, these questions have been incubating in the back of my mind. As christians, I think the answers to those questions are slightly different than those of non-christians. Either way, it's clear that the battlefield is not directly a fight with guns and violence, it's a battle of ideas.
If you haven't seen Andrew Klavin's September 11th video, I highly recommend that you go watch it.
Thirdpower, if you believe that ACORN engages in election fraud and promoting child slavery, then you must accept Michael Moore's films as gospel.
Why's that Mark?
I 'believe' it because dozens of ACORN employees have been convicted of it in courts of law and have been caught on film. Even ACORN recognizes it now.
Marky:"I don't see any sort of solutions (i.e. mechanism for a moral compass) coming from your side....except the blank gaze and heroin addicted like moan of "free market.""
Marky, you are by far the most hard headed individual I have ever encountered. I've had a growing conviction for some time that not only do you ignore things you don't like, you somehow don't even know that those things even exist. I've noticed this growing tendency for certain ideas to not even register in your consciousness, let alone recognized and rejected. This is one of those points.
It's not that we haven't told you about solutions, you just can't seem to see our answer. It's almost as if you've fallen under this…
"Dull the minds of these people;
deafen their ears and blind their eyes;
otherwise they might see with their eyes
and hear with their ears,
understand with their minds,
turn back, and be healed."
(Isaiah 6:10 HCSB)
Here is the core solution, which has been stated over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and…
Ken:"My central purpose is to live my life and take care of my family as I see fit, without using force or fraud against anyone else."
Notice those key words: "Force" and "Fraud". You have seen ALL of us say similar things numerous times. You've also seen us say that it is a legitimate role of government to define appropriate laws against fraud and force and to enforce those rules. Contract law is a huge part of that. There are valid laws against inappropriate contracts. There are also penalties for violating valid contracts.
You keep pretending that we favor anything goes, no rules whatsoever, scorched earth free markets. Nothing could be further from the truth.
What you can't seen to understand (maybe because you're mentally blind to it?) is that when you rant against corporate malfeasance, WE AGREE WITH YOU!* Yet you continue to act as if we don't. Why is that idea so hard to understand???
It's just that we ALSO oppose government malfeasance!
You've ranted that when a corporation (such as AIG) misbehaves, it should pay the price. WE AGREE WITH YOU! That's WHY we opposed the bailouts. If a company does something STUPID, bailing it out rewards the stupidity, guaranteeing that it will happen again. Yet somehow, you're perfectly fine with government doing just that.
So which is it Marky? Do you favor corporations paying for their actions? Or do you favor the government making the payment instead? You can't have both. We favor the corporations paying for their own actions.
(*Important: Someone receiving a large salary from a corporation for work the corporation considers to be valuable is not malfeasance unless it is due to force or fraud. If it's too high, then that's the kind of thing that market forces are the best at correcting.)
Ed, I got pretty exhausted over the summer with politics/arguing, and needed a breather from blogs. Two jobs + a new business are also eating a lot of my time. But with all this ACORN fall-out, I just had to see what Mark's response would be. I was not disappointed.
Absolutely, it's a battle of ideas. It's a battle of culture, it's a battle of definitions. Our side has been slow to realize this, and it's unfortunate that the Founders could not anticipate it. (Then again, how do you protect people from ideas?) Just to show you how insiduous the war is, consider that the Christian-affiliated university I work for now has a "social justice" requirement. I think the Internet, and blogs/videos in particular, will be of great value to us. I'm not ready to give up. But stuff like this does give me pause.
I recently said over at the Acton Institute blog that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops were out to lunch with respect to their position on health care as a right. Didn't go over all that well, which is just one of the issues I have with my Magisterium.
Victoria Jackson at Big Hollywood has had some interesting cultural perspectives too.
Ken, the left has discovered the Christian kryptonite, which is our sense of guilt and compassion. Those qualities have been perverted into "social justice" (how I hate that term). If we have any hope of prevailing, Christians must stop indulging in guilt and understand that compassionate intentions are not the same as compassionate outcomes.
We also need to remember our Sun Tzu. I'm not convinced that many on our side understand the enemy all that well. But we're making progress in terms of figuring out that the thing they can least tolerate is the 10,000-watt light of day shining on them.
Christians should understand that true compassion lies in creating conditions that enable people to take care of themselves, and then expecting them to do so. You don't do people any favors by doing things for them.
Sarah, the one thing the "non-left" needs to discover is that the left will not play fair regardless of whether or not the non-left does. Hypocrisy, double standards, and Markanitwit's Standard Responses are de rigueur.
Responding in kind debases one to their level. I prefer to expose the falseness and pound it home. This doesn't cure the left, but it can educate and entertain the fence-sitters.
"It's pretty clear to me that he meant all of us in the original post."
Wrong. Unless you have made millions in a criminal fashion, of course. I think you got my point and now you are just trying to do the Nixon on me...yet again.
Ed, I am not a Marxist but again, nice try from pg. 1 of The Wingnut Playbook.
DJ, well, you have been quite successful in proving the point that I have been making for years...tap into your inner rage and pass off something as fact. Clearly, you haven't a fucking clue what the act of voter fraud is but I will give you an example. In the election of 1960, Jack Kennedy was elected due to voter fraud in Chicago. This is a fact. Several dead people voted thanks to Mayor Daley. BTW, notice how I have no problem admitting this but I'm certain that you would have an embolism if I pointed to the voter fraud that occurred in the 2000 election.
Signing "Mickey Mouse" on a voter registration form to make money for for work not done is not voter fraud.
Mark can't explain. It's one of his memorized chanting talking points. Nixon will come out next.
Unix-Jedi | Email | Homepage | 09.21.09 - 4:16 pm |
now you are just trying to do the Nixon on me...
Markadelphia | Email | Homepage | 09.22.09 - 3:10 pm
Can I call it? Or CAN I CALL IT?
Signing "Mickey Mouse" on a voter registration form to make money for for work not done is not voter fraud.
And bookcases full of laws, regulation, and court decisions aren't "regulation" according to you. (Regarding the Mortgage market.)
What the hell else is it? You're defrauding the electoral system. You're listing people who don't exist. You're enabling people to lie and say that that's them, and vote "provisionally" and illegally, and distort every measurement of voters. How even you can manage to justify that as not being election fraud would be staggering, if you weren't just fine with actual slavery, but whining at voluntary contracts.
After that, just being incapable of comprehending what "voter fraud" is is minor.
Speaking of, o Awakened and Gigantic, what's stopping you from going door to door and collecting those semi-auto rifles whose cosmetic features and magazine capacity give you PSH on your own Awakened and Gigantic convictions and resources?
"Democrats have stolen more elections than Republicans, including one stolen by my hero JFK. Republicans are more racist now and have stolen more elections in recent years."
How are elections "stolen", oh Giant In Your Own Mind? VOTE FRAUD!!
You complain about stolen elections, then actively defend an organization which is routinely convicted of vote fraud AND under investigation in fully half the states in this country?!? Yeah. Mmmm'kay. Hey, as long as it benefits your side, it's okay?!?
I know you've given up pretending to be rational. Now how about admitting it to yourself?
Continuing on in the same comment:
"So what exactly what is Obama condemned to repeat? The era of FDR? Gee, that really turned out to be the worst thing that ever happened to this country. We rebuilt our nation after a series of failed policies and beat the strongest army the world has ever known. And it was the closest we have ever come to socialism. We aren't even going to come close to that with Senator Obama."
I guess you're sorta right. We haven't come as close as we did with FDR, we're much, much, much closer, what with the government takeover of GM and Chrysler, government mandated salaries in the private sector (with a freakin' Pay Czar who wants to "claw back" salaries already paid to executives), government control of most major banks, and socialized health care being crammed down our throats.
What was that about not even coming close to "the worst thing that ever happened to this country" with Senator Obama? Oh, that's right… Senator Obama wouldn't do that, but President Obama already has already surpassed the worst damage inflicted by FDR.
"Signing "Mickey Mouse" on a voter registration form to make money for for work not done is not voter fraud."
Signing "Mickey Mouse" on a voter registration form is voter fraud, specifically voter registration fraud, and in a federal election, it's a federal crime. I'm going to show you.
So, let's begin the lesson, teacher boy. Now pay attention, because all of this will be on the test. Golly, but this is going to be fun.
First, consider a hypothetical: If a person kills a co-worker to prevent the co-worker from ratting on him to his boss for goofing off and so getting paid for work he didn't do, does the act of killing the co-worker constitute murder? Of course it does. The reason for committing the act does not change the fact that the act is a crime, not with committing murder, and not with committing voter registration fraud. Saying the act was done for some other purpose is nothing more than excuse-making, particularly when such a claim comes through a defense attorney. You are relying on such an excuse, and you are executing an epic failure. Read on and you'll see it, 'cause I'm gonna 'splain it.
Now, let's look at this definition of voter registration fraud. You remember the term "voter registration fraud", don't you? It is the crime that some ACORN workers have been convicted of, as the article you linked to noted, and as many more articles I've shown you where to find also relate. Here is what it states [with emphasis added]:
"Voter registration fraud is the act of registering to vote, or registering someone else to vote, when fraud is involved. Voter registration fraud is considered to be a type of vote fraud.
"Different ways to commit fraud in the voter registration process include:
"* Filling out and submitting a voter registration card for a fictional (made-up) person. The made-up name on the card can be recognizable ("Mickey Mouse") or just a random made-up name, like "Jessica Random".
"* Filling out a voter registration card with the name of a real person, but without that person's consent, and forging his or her signature on the card."
Note the first and second bolded parts? That's the definition of voter registration fraud that I explained to you multiple times. And the third bolded part? That name mean anything to you?
Now, remember the definition of "fraud" that I quoted? Here it is again:
"fraud
"n. a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain
"n. deliberate deception or cheating intended to gain an advantage
"n. an act of such deception"
Damned fine definition, ain't it? Do you s'pose one can commit fraud to gain an unfair advantage with one's employer? But, I digress ... it is an interesting point, but it is not essential to my case.
Now, go read this, which is a .pdf file titled The Federal Crime of Election Fraud. It comes from a book titled Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses". You can find it at Amazon.com. In it, we find this [with emphasis added]:
"... there are essentially four types of federal «election fraud:»
"- First, there are schemes to purposely and corruptly register voters who either do not exist, or who are known by the putative defendant to be ineligible to vote under applicable state law."
"... purposely and corruptly register voters who ... do not exist ..." Now where have I heard that before?
But, you think this definition of voter registration fraud is not real, don't you? It's just someone else's opinion and so doesn't count, right? Well, let's try the federal statutes, in particular U.S. Code, Title 42, Chapter 20, Subchapter i, part (c) [with emphasis added]:
"Whoever knowingly or willfully gives false information as to his name, address or period of residence in the voting district for the purpose of establishing his eligibility to register or vote, or conspires with another individual for the purpose of encouraging his false registration to vote or illegal voting, or pays or offers to pay or accepts payment either for registration to vote or for voting shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both ..."
Giving false information to register a name to establish eligibility to vote in a federal election is a federal crime. It is irrelevant if any other purpose was involved, which means making the excuse that "I did it to get paid for work I didn't do" doesn't keep the act from being a federal crime. It doesn't work for killing a co-worker nor does it work for being a lazy worker. The prima facia purpose of putting a name on a registration form is to make the person so named eligible to vote, regardless of any other purpose for committing the crime.
I've barely scratched the surface, and I haven't even TOUCHED the statutes of fifty states.
Now, you would have us believe that what the ACORN workers of that FactCheck.org article did was nothing more than defraud their employer. After all, even a prosecuting attorney admitted to that particular fraud. So, why did they plead guilty to "providing false information on voter registration forms"? Because their excuse wasn't enough; they couldn't get away with voter registration fraud.
You'd have a case if they got off on that excuse, but they didn't, and claiming to be right on those grounds is your epic failure.
Regarding compassion, that was precisely my point. Christians must realize that to promote government dependence is to promote slavery. And it shifts the focus from God as authority to government as authority.
DJ,
No, we don't want to debase ourselves by stooping to the other side's level. What we need to do is discover their kryoptonite -- which I believe is the truth -- and exploit the hell out of it, like they do with us.
Your patience, and indeed the patience of everyone here, in dealing with Mark is impressive. But to paraphrase the great Samuel Johnson in Black Adder III, arguing with Mark is like fitting wheels to a tomato: time-consuming and completely pointless. Unless the point is to convince bystanders of the vacuity of typical leftist thought. Or to indulge in some easy sport. :)
Consider their recent attacks via our moral code. When we disagree with Obama, they call us racists. Now any decent, moral person does not want to actually be a racist. So their thinking is that if they call us racist, that will cause us to shrink away from shrink away from our disagreement because it "leads" to the charge of racism.
But all that's necessary for the accusation to lose its effectiveness is for everyone to recognize the truth—the accusation itself is a lie. When we disagree with Obama's policies, it has absolutely nothing to do with his skin color, and everything to do with the negative effects of those policies in every country they've been tried in throughout history. In other words, it's rational thinking, not racism.
Of course, there is always the possibility of biases and prejudices coloring our judgment, but as rational creatures we are capable of examining our own biases and determining if they have tainted our reasoning. But once we identify and examine our own biases and their potential impact on our judgement, then we can be sure that the charges actually are invalid.
For example, I also disagree strongly with white guys (and women) who promote the same ideas as Obama for exactly the same reasons. (Gore, Kerry, Kennedy, Schumer, Specter, Frank, etc.) I also have no trouble allying myself with black, brown, red, green and orange people who also reasonably disagree with Obama. Therefore, race isn't playing a role in that judgement.
In other words, the examined truth is the antidote to false accusations. Unfortunately, that doesn't prevent me from getting angry at the lies. This does help some:
“Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and falsely say every kind of evil against you because of Me.”
(Matthew 5:11 HCSB)
No, they don't, DJ, but we're not trying to convince them. We're trying to convince the ones who haven't had their brains completely lobotomized by leftism (leftotomized?)
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2009/09/that-was-quick.html (97 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Wow. Nice.
It's missing the word "child".
Aw, common-- it's just sex. You're not supposed to complain about law-breaking and corruption if it involves sex. Didn't you learn anything during the '90s? Besides; I bet it was the Big Insurance companies that put those two up to it, 'cause they're all racist.
"Courtesy of the United States Government" underneath all of that would be so much better...
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2009/09/wrecking-crew.html
And it was simply bloody genius. Wonder if anyone sells that as a stencil?
In addition to the post above I will say that all of you should be proud of ensuring that an organization whose three main goals are to find affordable housing for minorities, raise the minimum wage and assist minorities in voting has lost funding and any small amount of power they had before any of this started.
A tip of the cap for a great win for the side whose central purpose is to maintain their lifestyles as opposed to improving anyone's life. Congratulations!
Almost perfect.
Needs the word:
"STIMULUS"
above the ACORN logo
(A little Hopey-Changey "O" thing in the lower right corner wouldn't be bad, either).
Mark:
"In addition to the post above I will say that all of you should be proud of ensuring that an organization whose three main goals are to find affordable housing for minorities, raise the minimum wage and assist minorities in voting has lost funding and any small amount of power they had before any of this started. "
Ah. Mark...now your just trolling.
Go pimp your lame-ass blog somewhere else.
Any day we can get a waaah out of Grima son of Galmod, is a good day.
Soooo . . . Enough time has passed for Rule #10 to expire?
And now you're defending ACORN personnel "helping" people with the sexual slavery of underage girls?
In five out of five offices?
Without (apparently) batting an eyelash?
Nope, it's just the "right wing" machine! (A 25 year-old guy, a 20 year-old girl, $1,300 and a hidden camera! What will they come up with next?)
I suggest you go re-read Alinski's Rules for Radicals. The Right is just doing to the Left what the Left has been doing to the Right for decades.
The difference is, the Left is using the Right's decency against itself. The Right is holding a million-candlepower spotlight on the Left's indecency.
Stings a bit, apparently.
Actually from what I have read, their main "reason d'tre" was blackmailing corporations, paying-off democrat-politicians who voted them more taxpayer dollars, creating fraudulent votes for those same politicians, and raising money to pay the exorbitant salaries to the CEO's of their 200 or so connected organizations.
But that's just me; and shortly a whole lot of others as well.
In addition to the post above I will say that all of you should be proud of ensuring that an organization whose three main goals
Goals?
We've been through this time and again. Hurts being in that radical fringe 12% of Democrats, doesn't it?
Goals don't equal results. The best goals, the best intentions don't matter. Nor would you seriously consider that the stated goals aren't the actual goals. That's far above your ability.
Yes, I'm damnned proud that a corrupt organization - one we've been arguing with you for years as to the corruption - obvious to us, not to you - is getting exposed, examined, and as more light is brought to bear, more roaches and rats are scurrying.
The fact that you're not, that you're ok with an organization under indictment in 1/2 the states (right now) that it operates in, that it obviously promotes lawbreaking, tax dodging - not paying their "fair share", and gaming and ripping off the system demonstrates who's really out of reality.
Or who's promoting slavery. 5 offices - so far - had no problem with outright, no bones about it, SLAVERY.
Slavery, Mark. What you whine about, these 5 (so far) offices encouraged. Chained down. Made to serve as sex slaves.
And you're fine with that.
You whine about your mortgage, but you're good with young girls chained down and raped.
Yeah, your Wilson comments are similarly unhinged.
Go back - read the old comments - who predicted this? You? Or "us"?
By the way, I've met Joe Wilson. He's not a racist. He does, however, eat mayonnaise straight from the jar.
And even more importantly, he was right. The truth of which has been adequately demonstrated in spades... Yet you impart a sinister motive and GOAL to him, and denounce him.
But, Mark, what of his goals? What of his goals to protect America?
Oh, just your usual idiotic hypocrisy. You've been late, Frank!
What, have you been out raping sex slaves?
Or throwing Javier under more buses? What of poor Javier? Hey, maybe he can go get some help from Acorn... Does he have a 13-15 year old daughter?
Doofus boy, one of the primary functions of ACORN is engaging in voter fraud. Another was going to be fudging the fuck out of the census next year. Them getting de-funded and off the census staff is a Damned Fine Thing.
The glaring spotlight of publicity (see Heinlein, Robert A.) has embarrassed the living shit out of most of the Dimocrat party, rightly so. But it didn't embarrass you, and after 23 days of silence, you hadda come tell us how unembarrassed you are. See why we find you so loathsome?
Oh, and the monsters are still out. You gonna go back and clean up the mess you left?
I do wonder about those who bemoan the eradication of an enabler to the sourcing of underaged sex-slaves.
What Marky, you worried that the price is gonna go up?
Lessons there for you in both supply & demand. And, morality.
Neither which seem to be native concepts to you.
Jim
Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX
That's the bottom line, Mark. You're okay with an organization that condones slavery as long as it fits your politics. This is hardly surprising, considering you're part of a party 42% of whom think our last President should be tried for high treason and conspiracy to commit the murder of 2,996 American civilians.
Entire cultures do go insane sometimes, I don't guess I should be surprised that 42% of a political party can.
Everyone else has been so eloquent...
I'm going to roll on "Ah, fuck off, Mark."
You're so fucking blind that you can't see the possibility that we hope to improve the lot of the poor as well, only we plan to do it without stealing from anyone. Are you so goddamn jealous of those who have more than you that you'd rather see them torn down to raise those with little, rather than simply moving the entire fucking curve up?
I am so goddamn sick of you self-righteous assholes who insist that our only goal is self-gratification. What the fuck good does it do to pull poor people out of poverty if they have no guarantee that they'll get to keep any of it if someone lower on the scrotum pole comes walking along with their hand stuck out?
We don't hate your retarded social engineering schemes because we hate poor people. We hate your retarded social engineering schemes because (among other things) we think they'll actively do a worse job of elevating the poor than our free-market ideas.
No, Kevin. I'm not. Of course they should have been fired. As I am reminded here quite often, though, generalizations are always a bad thing. If you think that ACORN as a whole promotes underage prostitution, then you must also believe that everything that Michael Moore says is true, right?
DJ, your point regarding voter fraud has been proven to be completely wrong by factcheck.
Perl, nice screed. It's nice to know that The Wrecking Crew's ranks are growing.
I am so goddamn sick of you self-righteous assholes who insist that our only goal is self-gratification.
I'm just plain sick of ANYONE on the left who decides that throwing out guesses as to WHY I believe what I do is a fine substitute for engaging the ideas, themselves.
No, you know what? I DO hate the poor. In fact, I wish people below the poverty line didn't even EXIST!
"DJ, your point regarding voter fraud has been proven to be completely wrong by factcheck."
Teacher boy, my point regarding voter fraud has been proven to be completely right by convictions of ACORN workers for vote fraud in various state and federal courts.
Go to google.com. Search for "Acorn voter fraud convictions". Read. Take your time; there's lots to read.
Goddamn, little boy, do you really expect anyone to take you seriously?
Now, go clean up your mess.
DJ,
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/acorn_accusations.html
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/acorn-and-the-census/
"Nevertheless, the allegations are still floating around the blogosphere and talk shows, where ACORN is being described as a criminal enterprise that sends partisans to the polls to vote multiple times using the names of people long dead. We’ve continued to monitor the various cases against and investigations of ACORN workers, and so far there’s been no evidence that fraudulent votes were cast as a result of anything they did."
"Several ACORN canvassers have been found guilty of faking registration forms and others are being investigated. But the evidence that has surfaced so far shows they faked forms to get paid for work they didn’t do, not to stuff ballot boxes."
How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when, as of yet, you can't see how wrong you are? Do your homework, asshat, and try not to let your ideology trip you up along the way.
"Several ACORN canvassers have been found guilty of faking registration forms and others are being investigated. But the evidence that has surfaced so far shows they faked forms to get paid for work they didn't do, not to stuff ballot boxes."
So, let me see if I understand your point, Gríma son of Gálmód. It's okay with you, and by extension should be okay with everyone, that an organization that receives taxpayer dollars has a sizable number of employees who commit actual fraud, and some in at least five cities who are willing to be complicit in tax fraud and the import of underage prostitutes.
Just in case you're slower than usual today, I'll say it again: It's okay with you, and by extension should be okay with everyone, that an organization that receives taxpayer dollars has a sizable number of employees who commit actual fraud, and some in at least five cities who are willing to be complicit in tax fraud and the import of underage prostitutes.
Because at least they didn't sell drugs. [/everybodyhateschris]
That about sum it up, Wormtongue?
There's a little thing called character, Gríma, and You. Haven't. Got. Any.
"How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when, as of yet, you can't see how wrong you are? Do your homework, asshat, and try not to let your ideology trip you up along the way."
Sigh ...
How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when, as of yet, you can't see how wrong you are? Do your howework, asshat, and try not to let your ideology trip you up along the way.
Y'see, you've popped up with a two-fer today!
Once again, you respond with your Standard Response #7, the "Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin' camera?" response. Nothing is valid, no matter what the evidence for it is, unless it squares with the conclusions you've already jumped to.
and
Once again, you respond with your Standard Response #9, the "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response. You simply assert that the other side is what you don't like your side being accused of.
Only you would declare that convictions for voter fraud aren't actually evidence of voter fraud.
Now, go clean up your mess.
Well, well, well. Brave Sir Robin is back, but now he's running around naked in another part of the woods.
I can't even taking him seriously anymore.
So ACORN employees don't even bat an eye at sex slavery of underage girls. Not only that, they know just what to do right off the top of their heads! They didn't even have to do any research! This means that it's a common occurrence!
If it was just one office, then the "rogue employees" excuse might have some merit. But this was in every single office they visited in widely separated parts of the country! That's not rogue employees, that's fucking SYSTEMIC!!!
And Marky is defending actual SLAVERY!!! Not some asinine "wage slave" if you squint your eyes and peek through the right filters equivalence, but honest-to-God, chains, beatings, and forced sex, real, we've-been-trying-to-stop-it-for-more-than-150-years SLAVERY of young defenseless girls! He's goddamn DEFENDING an organization that SYSTEMICALLY assists in helping these scum of the earth EVADE detection, prosecution and punishment. That's an Accessory To The Crime by any standard I can think of.
Marky, you claim to be a champion of the poor. But these young girls stuck in sex slavery are the poorest of the poor. But you're looking the other way and defending an organization that Helps Victimize Them! How can you even look yourself in the mirror?!?
And I haven't even touched on their voter fraud (STEALING ELECTIONS!) and the "affordable housing" crap which led to inevitable defaults which directly caused our current recession.
Here's a hint Marky, if you want to keep your job, don't let the school board know that you support White Slavery.
I guess the "great awakening" was simply giving up the pretense that he had any moral compass.
"Only you would declare that convictions for voter fraud aren't actually evidence of voter fraud."
Only someone as blinded by a maniacal ideology like you can't understand the law...even a simple one like this. The facts are on my side. Read the links as I am sure you haven't. You are wrong.
Ed, nice straw man. So are you saying that you believe that ACORN as a whole supports underage prostitution and human trafficking? If you do, then I guess all of your arguments against Michael Moore are out the window as well.
Only someone as blinded by a maniacal ideology like you
... Says the "teacher" who says a W-2 job or a mortgage is "slavery" and evil, but is fine with teenage girls chained to beds and raped - as long as it's DEMOCRATS making the untaxed profits. And that we're billed for any health care their Democratic slavemasters takes them in for. Especially their abortions and birth control. In that care, that's fine. Nowhere near as bad as someone ALMOST SPITTING IN SOMEONE'S FACE AND MAKING THEM CRY!
I think you really need to step back and re-evaluate who is blinded here. Thankfully for us, you won't. You'll lie some more, you'll misuse some words, refuse to admit you don't know what they mean, link to some screeds you don't understand, then run away and deny you've done all of that.
And then call us "unhinged".
Ed, nice straw man.
No, Mark, you're misusing that term.
Badly.
What Ed presented was not a straw man.
So are you saying that you believe that ACORN as a whole supports underage prostitution and human trafficking?
That's a straw man.
I'd tell you you're hypocritical, but I don't want you to scream you're not a water cow from Africa, how dare I call you names.
Mark:
I'll try and explain this in terms small enough that you'll understand - it will be hard, since you demonstrably don't have a 5th grade reading comphrension.
But I'll try.
Ed and I have pointed out proof that multiple ACORN offices have had NO PROBLEM with teenage slavery. Note, this is slavery. Not what you're calling slavery, but what's described to the ACORN people. (And we don't know how pervasive this is - other than the evidence that so far 5 have immediately assisted with tax evasion and hiding a criminal enterprise, and! explicitly condoned sexual slavery of teenagers.
It is not a strawman to refer to this as actual hard proof that ACORN is employing people who are "blinded by ideology" and for whom Democrat votes and abortion are more important than actual slavery. 2 people spent $1300 and have uncovered 5 offices - that we know of! ACORN's denials have been proven to be lies, as they've fired the people involved, denied that it was a systemic problem, and have now shut down for a "investigation" (read, find out how bad the real news is).
Your "counter" (which is quotes because it really wasn't) of ACORN as a whole supports underage prostitution and human trafficking? is a strawman, because that's not what Ed said, and you're saying that UNLESS every. single. employee. is so corrupted and yes, I'll say it, evil, then you cannot criticize the ones who are proven to be so.
That is a strawman, Mark, and it's just pure Markadelphiasm that you'd USE a strawman right after you dismiss Ed for using one. When he didn't.
And then say that we're the ones blinded by ideology, and refuse to admit your lies and deception. Chained. To. A. Bed. Versus a W-2 job.
According to your arguments here, chained to a bed and raped is "no big deal", but yelled at and spit on is "slavery".
U-J, I don't think Marky's statement is a straw man. Here's why:
1) These ACORN employees did not have to do any research to know what to do. That means these were not new situations to them.
2) They acted in favor of underage prostitution in every case.
3) Their actions were largely consistent among 5 different offices in completely different parts of the country.
This indicates some degree of coordination between the offices. This coordination is highly unlikely without the involvement of upper management.
So while I doubt that ACORN actively solicits prostitution and human trafficking, they do support it by actively helping those engaged in such activities to avoid government intervention.
For the record, I also doubt that you would find training manuals or anyone giving such advice since this story broke. The word has almost certainly gone out that this is not to happen again. (Typical behavior for a criminal organization: "It's fine with us, but whatever you do, don't get caught.")
Once more, in short words:
ACORN faked work records for work it had been paid to do.
That is fraud by any standard.
They also get tax dollars (I'll wait while you go look up "fungible," Wormtongue).
You claim that since there's no evidence -- more accurately, someone claims there's no evidence -- that vote fraud occurred, everything is hunky-dory among the Twelve Percent, who, by the Miracle of Magical Thinking, know and express the Will of the People.
Ed:
You're reading Mark's comment and reading more into it.
Mark said that only if ALL of ACORN is good with it, is it legitimate criticism. Notice he won't talk about the ones we know are willing to assist in this - and how many question it raises about the OTHER tax advice and "housing assistance" they've been giving. (In everything - they had no problem telling people to lie on the forms and lie and keep from paying taxes.)
That is a strawman. It's a misdirection that allows him to dismiss your argument (setting it on fire) with the claim that "surely" not EVERYONE feels that way.
This from the guy who's talking about the latent and overt racism - including from Wilson - in which he's in only 12% of DEMOCRATS. But there's no problem is assigning racism to everybody who opposes Obama.
His first claim was a strawman:
an organization whose three main goals are to find affordable housing for minorities, raise the minimum wage and assist minorities in voting
(and nonsensical, since wage laws - which ACORN doesn't pay, and has been cited multiple times for failing to pay their people min wage! - increase unemployment.)
In other words, ignore the proof and only study intent. And actually "intent".
Mark, by the way.. what was the "goal" of the 2nd Ku Klux Klan? The Nazi Party? If you're going to only use goals, then you have to do that across the board!
Ohhhhhhh. It's different there, right?
Okay, that's fine U-J. I just read that single sentence at face value.
But I've been thinking more about this. I doubt that ACORN had anything explicitly support prostitution and sexual slavery in any of their training. What seems more likely is just an all pervasive attitude of "defending" the poor against "power" (which would include "the rich" and government), no matter what.
In practice, this "no matter what" attitude seems to include illegal activities in its mandate. So if the poor can't actually afford the house, ACORN still takes their side, including breaking into houses which the bank had to take back and resell to cover the loan which wasn't being paid. This also apparently includes helping to avoid paying taxes, covering up prostitution, "voter registration" to push the vote in the direction "the poor would vote". It also wouldn't surprise me if they helped cover up drug dealing, theft and fencing of stolen goods, and gang activity.
In other words, it's an attitude of "the poor are always right. Always."
Perl, nice screed. It's nice to know that The Wrecking Crew's ranks are growing.
After all, just because someone specifically lays out their viewpoint (and goals!), it can be ignored in favor of blind ideology!
Unix, read Frank's book and I challenge you to prove him wrong point by point. Thus far, the only criticism here that has been offered is that he is a "hack" and a "liar." Alright, how exactly?
His assessment of the right is accurate considering the facts and the results of the actions from those facts. Perl's comment above thoroughly proves this.
"Unix, read Frank's book and I challenge you to prove him wrong point by point."
Mark, do you have any idea the level of respect you have here, or credibility?
Shouldn't you go deal with your other messes and (probably) hundreds of mysteriously abandoned threads first?
"Only someone as blinded by a maniacal ideology like you can't understand the law...even a simple one like this. The facts are on my side. Read the links as I am sure you haven't. You are wrong."
This is like shooting fish in a barrel, but here goes ...
I read the links, teacher boy. You laid your own trap and I just let you walk into it. Now I'm gonna 'splain it to you.
First, we have definitions:
fraud
n. a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain
n. deliberate deception or cheating intended to gain an advantage
n. an act of such deception
Thus "voter fraud" or "vote fraud" (I use the terms interchangeably herein) is an act of deception that is practiced in order that votes may be fraudulently cast or fraudulently counted. Note carefully that one can commit voter fraud without casting a fraudulent vote, for example by falsely registering a name on the voter rolls such that someone else may fraudulently cast a vote by impersonating the named person. Such is a common practice in Chicago, where President Obamateur used to advise and defend ACORN.
Now, the statements that I made, which you took exception to, are (verbatim):
"Doofus boy, one of the primary functions of ACORN is engaging in voter fraud." [emphasis added]
and
"Teacher boy, my point regarding voter fraud has been proven to be completely right by convictions of ACORN workers for vote fraud in various state and federal courts."
Note that I did NOT accuse any employee of ACORN of casting a fraudulent vote, nor did I imply or suggest that any had done so. I stated that ACORN engages in voter fraud and that ACORN workers had been convicted of vote fraud. The statement is demonstrably true; their convictions are a matter of public record, and I showed you how you could verify it for yourself.
That was the trap, and you walked right into it.
Now, I quote the following from the first of the two FactCheck.org articles that you linked to (again, verbatim):
"Neither ACORN nor its employees have been found guilty of, or even charged with, casting fraudulent votes."
Golly. What a straw man. Again, I didn't accuse them of casting fraudulent votes.
To continue with that article:
"What a McCain-Palin Web ad calls "voter fraud" is actually voter registration fraud. Several ACORN canvassers have been found guilty of faking registration forms and others are being investigated."
The article admits that ACORN canvassers were found guilty of committing voter fraud, teacher boy. Thus, the first FactCheck.org article you cited confirms the truth of my statements.
So, we have yet another example of your Standard Response #6, the "How 'bout a little fire, Scarecrow?" response. You have deliberately missed the point, laying on yet another straw man, even as you accuse Ed of doing the same.
Now, let's look at the other statement that I made (again, verbatim):
"Another was going to be fudging the fuck out of the census next year."
Note the careful choice of words and the intentional phrasing: "... was going to be ..." This was not a statement of fact, it was a prediction of what would have happened had not something intervened to prevent it. We will never know whether or not the prediction would have been correct because it will never be tested.
The second article of the two FactCheck.org articles that you linked to discusses this, only to dispute the prediction. It is the the author's opinion, nothing more. Yet again, we have another example of your Standard Response #3, the "I'm not alone" response. You state your opinion, and then you point to the writings of other people who share your opinion as if that makes your opinion fact.
You hypocritical halfwit, you're playing with grownups here, and you have neither the intellectual ability to understand the language used nor the honesty to use it accurately.
Unix, read Frank's book and I challenge you to prove him wrong point by point.
You. Wouldn't. Know. When. I. Did.
Period. I don't say "if" I say WHEN. Because I can. But you can't even understand the basics of "strawman" "verbatim", much less comparisons!
Thus far, the only criticism here that has been offered is that he is a "hack" and a "liar." Alright, how exactly?
And it wasn't from me, you'll note. (And I think you're wrong, but that's a minor point. I'm pretty sure Frank's been eviscerated here, but you couldn't understand that.)
His assessment of the right is accurate
Says the man who calls a salary slavery, and a house payment slavery, but chaining teenagers to beds and having men rape them and evade taxes to be laudable.
The rest of us will take that into consideration as to your description of "accuracy". (Protip: "Accuracy" doesn't mean "What Sounds Good To Mark", but at this point it's one of your least egregious misuses.)
Perl's comment above thoroughly proves this.
No, it doesn't. All it does is prove you're blinded by ideology. His comment was exactly the opposite, and in fact a decent description that should allow you to understand - if you weren't blinded.
You don't have the will to bend reality. And no matter how much you mangle concepts and words, you won't drag us into your insanity with you.
Dammit, people, stop hitting Marky with the Chair Legs of Truth! You'll give him even worse brain damage!
:D
"You'll give him even worse brain damage!"
Objection: assumes facts not in evidence. I have seen no credible evidence he has a brain (as in "more intelligent than a door knob").
I challenge Mark to read Wealth of Nations and counter Smith's arguments point-by-point.
Unless and until he does, that somehow proves everyone here right about everything.
I think.
"Do your homework, asshat, and try not to let your ideology trip you up along the way."
Well that's the pot calling the kettle black.
I lost most of my respect for 'Factcheck' when their own president admitted to preconceived opinions in his articles and fudged several of their own 'factchecks' on your messiah but never updated their articles.
Now over 30 ACORN employees in numerous states have been convicted of fraud (yes Fraud) and hundreds more are still under investigation. 'Factcheck' tries to diminish this number by referring to it as 'several'.
Five separate offices not only didn't blink an eye at supporting highly illegal activities including using underage girls as prostitutes but actively assisted the reporters by giving them tips on how to get them here.
And you can't see any underlying rot?
Talk about being blinded by ideology.
While we're at it, here's another gem from Grima:
A tip of the cap for a great win for the side whose central purpose is to maintain their lifestyles as opposed to improving anyone's life. (emphasis added)
Okay, Mr. Awakened Giant, here's Question Number One: What portion of our lifestyles are we not entitled, in your view, to maintain? Please be specific.
Question Number Two: Since you're so awakened and gigantic and all, it should be trivial for you to come and take from each of us whatever amount you've determined is appropriate from Question Number One, solely on your own convictions and using your own resources.
Ready when you are.
Ken, Bam! you just hit him with a freeze pop! Good post.
Shhh. The monsters are close again.
DJ, after reading your post above several times I...am at a loss. While I am certain you will descend into your usual personal attacks and hyperbolic vitriol, your back and forth regarding voter fraud gave me whiplash. The factcheck site plainly states that ACORN has not engaged in voter fraud (i.e. stuffing ballot boxes) and that some employees had been investigated for improper voter registration. Some had been convicted. Their impetus for doing so was to make money for work not done. It was not a systemic drive by ACORN itself.
I suspect that since you have already decided they are guilty and, like most on the right, have to bend the facts to fit your story, you will never see this.
Ken, many corporations of this country have enjoyed bending and sometimes even breaking the law with little or no government interference. These same corporations have been very successful (through buying people of both parties off in Congress) in lobbying the country to believe that the government is evil, they are pure and perfect, and to question otherwise means we will descend into mass murder similar to Joe Stalin salad days. See Frank's book.
These people have set up a system that largely doesn't resemble capitalism at all. It's corporatism or corporate fascism, if you will, and that is the lifestyle to which they are not entitled. If you have earned money through honest competition and hard work, you are correct in trying to fight for that and avoid government and bureaucratic entanglements. If you have flaunted the law, lied to investors, ignored your board of directors (or, in most cases, bought them off along with your local politicians) then you shouldn't be allowed dick.
Okay, just to recap, here's what I asked:
"What portion of our lifestyles are we not entitled, in your view, to maintain? Please be specific."
Here is what Gríma son of Gálmód answered:
"Ken, many corporations of this country have enjoyed bending and sometimes even breaking the law with little or no government interference. These same corporations have been very successful (through buying people of both parties off in Congress) in lobbying the country to believe that the government is evil, they are pure and perfect, and to question otherwise means we will descend into mass murder similar to Joe Stalin salad days. See Frank's book."
Yep, that's some anthrax there.
Now, you might try answering the question I asked, thou awakened north end of a southbound Apatosaurus.
PS--The paragraph following the one I quoted does not serve as an answer, being neither specific nor addressed to the people you originally addressed -- us.
While I am certain you will descend into your usual personal attacks and hyperbolic vitriol,
Except for the part where DJ actually presents you facts that you ignore. The vitriol is just spice to the Markadelphia Ignorance Entree.
You, not surprisingly, are ignoring that you have decried, insulted LabRat and others, and insisted that a voluntary contract and W-2 job, and a voluntary contract and mortage are evil slavery, but yet you're defending a group who (barely) blinked an eye at actual, real slavery.
And then told them how to lie on their taxes and get credits.
Their impetus
HOW DO YOU KNOW? That was their stated impetus. Stated. However, they have also been documented stating that they want to make the voting system collapse.
Yet again, your logic and thought process are found very wanting.
for doing so was to make money for work not done. It was not a systemic drive by ACORN itself.
.... So you're good with fraud. Do a google search on "Denial of Service" Because that's also part of what I think is the problem. It's backed up by the facts, as well as the simple fact that Every investigation of ACORN's efforts have resulted in the exact same findings.
I suspect that since you have already decided they are guilty
No, that was for the Juries to decide. Which they almost always have. Where, other than their words, words that you refuse to listen to from any on the "right", can you find any defense? You claim we don't have facts - and ignore the literally hundreds of them, and then attack us personally - while saying that's what we do.
You're pretty much "Opposite Man", there, Ralph.
and, like most on the right, have to bend the facts to fit your story, you will never see this.
... Says the man minimizing rape, slavery, fraud, rendering the voting registration systems ineffective ...
You really are this pathetically bad at thinking, aren't you?
FACTCHECK!!!! LALALALALALA!!!!! THERE WEREN'T 30+ FRAUD CONVICTIONS!!!!! LALALALALA
Which rule is Markie following w. his response?
Alright, Ken. I thought what I was saying was pretty obvious but how about this?
Bill MacGuire's vacation homes.
If that isn't specific enough, I'm sure I can find something else.
To further my above points, there is this quote. See if any of you can guess who wrote it...without google cheating:)
"In capitalism as envisioned by its leading lights, including Adam Smith and Alfred Marshall, you need a moral foundation in order for free markets to work. And when a company fails, it fails. It doesn't get bailed out using trillions of dollars of taxpayer money. What we have right now is Corporatism. It's welfare for the rich. It's the government picking winners and losers. It's Wall Street having their taxpayer-funded cake and eating it too. It's socialized losses and privatized gains."
So, the question is...what mechanism is that moral foundation?
It's the "Appeal to Authority" in this case Factcheck which has credibility and truth-bending issues of its own - not a weener, no banana for Mark.
So after Mark ignores a bunch of arguments that he ran away from because the facts disagreed with him, he's now "clarifying" with guilt by association like:
I thought what I was saying was pretty obvious but how about this?
Bill MacGuire's vacation homes.
Notice that he doesn't, however, explain what's wrong with them. He can't. All he can do is point to them (After someone else pointed them out to him) and screech.
Mark, that's not clarifying anything, or being "obvious".
What's obvious is that you're defending an organization that has - at least a large number of offices - who have or would assist slavers.
This after you called a W-2 job and/or a Mortgage "slavery". And Labrat called you out on it.
You've lost "clarity" here, and you're not going to get it back by backhanded personal attacks, indirect references, and quoting people who you like, but yet can't defend their argument.
Want clarity?
Let me explain:
"How about those ACORN offices, huh?" isn't clear.
You Are Defending Slavery while calling us slavers.
See, that's clarity.
McGuire just never gets old for you, does he?
Meanwhile, we're not supposed to have noticed that you moved the goalposts; of course, having been fed them first, you had to shit them out, but that's about par for the course for you.
"So, the question is...what mechanism is that moral foundation?"
Only someone bereft of a moral compass of his own has to ask. You cannot imagine morality without a badge and gun to enforce it, because in the darkest corner of your wizened soul, you know you need that guy with the badge and gun to keep from acting like the stimulus-response animal you are...
...and that you therefore imagine everyone else is.
So, the question is...what mechanism is that moral foundation?
Well, Mark, it's obviously not GOVERNMENT. Since it's Barack Obama and the Congress who've decided who is and who isn't "too big to fail." It is they who, as noted, are picking "the winners and losers."
And Obama was supposed to be the Second Coming, was He not? Both houses of Congress are dominated by Democrats, are they not?
And yet you tell us "It'll work if only the RIGHT PEOPLE ARE IN CHARGE!"
Wasn't Obama supposed to be "the One"?
What happened?
Now, a blast from the past:
(F)or the person who is not under the hypnotic psycho-spiritual spell of contemporary liberalism, it is strikingly devoid of actual religious wisdom or real ideas. As such, it is driven by vague, spiritually infused ideals and feelings, such as "sticking up for the little guy," or "war is not the answer." On the other hand, conservatism is not so much based on ideas, but on simply observing what works, and then generalizing from there. It is actually refreshingly free of dogma, and full of dynamic tension. For example, at the heart of conservatism is an ongoing, unresolvable dialectic between freedom and virtue. In other words, there is a bedrock belief in the idea that free markets are the best way to allocate scarce resources and to create wealth and prosperity for all, but a frank acknowledgment that, without a virtuous populace, the system may produce a self-centered, materialistic citizenry living in a sort of degenerate, "pitiable comfort." Thus, there is an ongoing, unresolvable tension between the libertarian and traditional wings of the movement.
There is no such dynamic tension in liberalism. Rather, it is a top-down dogma that is not dictated by what works, but by how liberals would like reality to be. This is why liberalism must be enforced with the mechanism of political correctness, in order to preempt or punish those who deviate from liberal dogma, and see what they are not supposed to see.
And yet, here you are, still driven by vague, spiritually infused ideals and feelings.
Thanks for the traffic.
Ken:
McGuire just never gets old for you, does he?
I've *asked* Mark to *explain* McGuire. He wandered off. Not ignoring me, oh, no, Mark would never do that, just... not bothering to answer that point.
Mark can't explain. It's one of his memorized chanting talking points. Nixon will come out next.
But don't bring up the NEA illegally directing grants to propaganda.. After all, it's not illegal if Obama demands it.
Yes it is 'Corporatism' Mark. It's been going on for decades and is being continued by your messiah as he caters to every special interest he denounced during his campaign.
What 'moral compass' was he following when he through the GLBT demographic under the bus after promising to repeal 'don't ask don't tell'? Or when he promised to to not hire lobbyists? Or even way back to promising to use public financing if his opponent did?
But of course I'm asking for a definition of 'moral compass' from someone who defends an organization which has had over 2 dozen people convicted for election fraud and promoted child slavery.
"McGuire just never gets old for you, does he?"
Alright, how about Joe Cassano? Sandy Weill? Jimmy Cayne? Angelo Mozilo? John Thain? Dick Fuld? Ken Lewis? I don't know about you but they are not fucking entitled to their lifestyle either.
I don't see any sort of solutions (i.e. mechanism for a moral compass) coming from your side....except the blank gaze and heroin addicted like moan of "free market."
Thirdpower, if you believe that ACORN engages in election fraud and promoting child slavery, then you must accept Michael Moore's films as gospel.
Thirdpower, if you believe that ACORN engages in election fraud and promoting child slavery, then you must accept Michael Moore's films as gospel.
Sorry, Mark, but this demonstrates your idiocy. That's the only point it makes.
Your Cargo-culting is on full-bore there.
they are not fucking entitled to their lifestyle either.
Ah, entitled. According to you. Which is similarly well-sourced.
if you believe that ACORN engages in election fraud
HAS BEEN CONVICTED FOR ELECTION FRAUD. You kind of left that out.
and promoting child slavery,
"Who you gonna believe? Me or your lyin' eyes?"
And then you with all seriousness say we are blinded by ideology.
I've seen the tapes, Mark. Just as I've seen that ACORN's been prosecuted and convicted in multiple states for election fraud.
Nothing about those facts in any way has anything to do with Michael Moore's veracity.
...they are not fucking entitled to their lifestyle either.
Ah, yes. Vague, spiritually infused ideals and feelings.
As Ken put it, "Since you're so awakened and gigantic and all, it should be trivial for you to come and take from each of (them) whatever amount you've determined is appropriate from Question Number One, solely on your own convictions and using your own resources."
Well?
And it's pretty obvious The Won won't be doing it, either, even though His party runs the entire show.
So now what?
"...each (of them)..."?
It's pretty clear to me that he meant all of us in the original post. He didn't name names, he just said, as is his collective-identity reflex wont, "side whose central purpose is to maintain their lifestyles."
My central purpose is to live my life and take care of my family as I see fit, without using force or fraud against anyone else. That is my lifestyle, which Gríma son of Gálmód has characterized as being inferior to the goals of ACORN and, by extension, the "progressive" left.
I withdraw my previous statement about Gríma not having a moral compass. You have a moral compass all right, Wormtongue: it's the moral compass of a Solomon Islands headhunter.
But the latter is a lot more honest about what he wants from me, and wouldn't fold up like a cheap suit when I called him on it.
Another PS--
The formula I used ("on your own convictions and using your own resources"), and that Kevin quoted, originated, as far as I know, with Billy Beck, as consistent a moral philosopher as I have ever seen on these here Intartubes.
"DJ, after reading your post above several times I...am at a loss."
Of course you are.
"The factcheck site plainly states that ACORN has not engaged in voter fraud (i.e. stuffing ballot boxes) and that some employees had been investigated for improper voter registration."
"i.e." is an abbreviation for Latin id est, which means "that is". Thus you assert that "voter fraud" means "stuffing ballot boxes", that a person engages in voter fraud ONLY by putting a fraudulent ballot in a ballot box.
You have tried to define the words of MY statement, "voter fraud" and "vote fraud", as meaning "stuffing ballot boxes".
So, again, we have another example of your Standard Response #8, The "Humpty Dumpty" response. You simply assert that my words mean what you say they mean. Thus, no matter what I write, it means that you are correct. This is also known as the "We don't need no stinking dictionary!" response.
As I patiently and clearly explained to you, there are many ways to commit voter fraud without stuffing ballot boxes:
"Note carefully that one can commit voter fraud without casting a fraudulent vote, for example by falsely registering a name on the voter rolls such that someone else may fraudulently cast a vote by impersonating the named person." [emphasis added]
In plain English, a person who fraudulently registers a person on voter rolls commits voter fraud by doing so. This does not involve said person fraudulently putting a ballot in a ballot box. You are at a loss, teacher boy, because you either do not understand or do not agree with those last two sentences.
Now, look again at that quote from the FactCheck.org article" that you linked to:
"What a McCain-Palin Web ad calls "voter fraud" is actually voter registration fraud. Several ACORN canvassers have been found guilty of faking registration forms ..."
That article specifically states that there is a type of voter fraud called "voter registration fraud" and that some ACORN canvassers (i.e. "workers") "have been found guilty" of it. You would have us believe that the crime they were convicted of cannot happen. YOU HAVE TRIED TO DEFINE IT OUT OF EXISTENCE.
Again, we have another example of your Standard Response #7, the "Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin' camera?" response. Nothing is valid, no matter what the evidence for it is, unless it squares with the conclusions you've already jumped to.
Now, I stated earlier that
"one of the primary functions of ACORN is engaging in voter fraud."
Why did I state that? Because courts all over the country are and have been hammering their workers for engaging in voter fraud.
Don't think so? Again, go google "Acorn voter fraud convictions" like I suggested. It comes up with 345,000 hits. Go count how many ACORN workers have been convicted in how many states for committing precisely the kind of voter fraud that the article you linked to describes and that I explained as an example. Count also how many ACORN workers have been indicted in how many states for voter fraud of all kinds.
I call engaging in voter fraud one of the primary functions of ACORN because that is what it appears to be.
But you don't agree because FactCheck.org says so.
Yet again, we have another example of your Standard Response #3, the "I'm not alone" response. You state your opinion, and then you point to the writings of other people who share your opinion, as if the request were about votes instead of verifiable facts, logic, and reasoned thought.
Now, go clean up your mess.
"A tip of the cap for a great win for the side whose central purpose is to maintain their lifestyles as opposed to improving anyone's life."
Been puzzling over this one for some time now.
Kindly explain, teacher boy, whose lot in life should I value improving more than I value improving my own lot in life, and why should I do so? Be specific, and justify your reasoning.
If you have flaunted the law, lied to investors, ignored your board of directors (or, in most cases, bought them off along with your local politicians) then you shouldn't be allowed dick.
And yet, Tim Geithner and Charlie Rangel, ripping off the very government programs you cherish so by cheating on their taxes, get committee chairmanships and cabinet posts as rewards, and that gets a pass from you.
In fact, it seems that any corruption in the public sector gets a mild response from you (if any at all), so long as it's the corruption of a liberal Democrat. If Wal Mart or Exxon did half the stuff the Democrat party and ACORN do as a matter of routine, you'd be foaming at the mouth. And yet you defend them...
How curious...
DJ: "Don't think so? Again, go google "Acorn voter fraud convictions" like I suggested."
Here, since Marky's giant pointy head has been beaten like a rented mule, let me google that for him:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=+Acorn+voter+fraud+convictions
See? Was that so hard?
Russell:
But you forget:
Google is a CORPORATION and thus is not to be trusted!
I was doing a little research on Rules for Radicals and found this page with quotes from the book. These two struck me as sounding awfully descriptive:
"A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of communism."
pg. 10
"An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth -- truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing.... To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations...."
pp. 10-11
This commentary by the page owner (I think) also struck me as interesting:
"Like Alinsky, Mikhail Gorbachev followed Gramsci, not Lenin. In fact, Gramsci aroused Stalins's wrath by suggesting that Lenin's revolutionary plan wouldn't work in the West. Instead the primary assault would be on Biblical absolutes and Christian values, which must be crushed as a social force before the new face of Communism could rise and flourish."
That's fascinating, Ed. Thanks!
U-J: But, but Google promised to do no evil! And the help the Chinese government censor the interwebz for their nation!
If you can't trust Google, who can you trust?!
Ken: Okay, Mr. Awakened Giant, here's Question Number One: What portion of our lifestyles are we not entitled, in your view, to maintain? Please be specific.
That portion provided for by coercion, of course.
*sigh*
The funny thing is, Mark, you seem to be right on the cusp of understanding the problem. Yes, it is a bad thing when the government indulges in Corporatism.
But the problem is even larger than the government turning a blind eye when corporations break the law--the government actually grants specific laws to specific corporate players.
Hell, Mark, the entire concept embodied by the word "corporation", as it exists as a legal standard in our society, is an absolute fabrication of the government. The legal abuses that corporations get away with are a side-effect of the government having granted them special rights in the first place.
Now, notice anything about what I've said here? The base of all of this woe isn't the corporations, it's the government, intentionally making the playing field unlevel. You want to know what works hardest to "keep the poor down"? It's the government, making it more difficult than it needs to be for poor people to lift themselves out of poverty. Making laws that benefit certain players on the top end of the field.
You ask what mechanism is that moral foundation that keeps the free-market running cleanly, and the answer is: the free-market. The government has all the guns in this equation. When you remove their influence from the market, the other players in the game have to gain their customers and therefore profits via voluntary transactions. The absence of coercion is what makes the free-market the free market in the first place.
Government isn't the solution to keeping the free market free, government is the poison preventing the free market from being free.
So Mark's still up to his usual tricks, and more obtuse than ever? But I think I see the edifice starting to crack, just a little.
I can't tell you with what delight I read an impassioned defense of an organization for actually committing one type of fraud instead of another. ("How dare you, sir! Why, this man doesn't beat up little old ladies in their homes. He beats them up in the street!")
Ed:
Instead the primary assault would be on Biblical absolutes and Christian values, which must be crushed as a social force before the new face of Communism could rise and flourish.
Compare with this observation by Victoria Jackson (of SNL fame):
My high school was Christian, so we were aware of spiritual warfare, invisible enemies. We were taught that the 2nd Amendment, the right to “bear arms” would prevent a military takeover. Instead, they said, the Communists would try to destroy us “from within” by encouraging sin in our youth. Promiscuous Sex, Drugs, Rock ‘n Roll, and a disrespect for authority would render our citizens helpless and weak. (Rap and it’s profanity hadn’t been invented yet.) This subtle, invisible, inward takeover was more powerful. Apathy, lack of education, lack of a family unit...lack of God.
Useful idiots like Mark notwithstanding, the other side knows the game well. It's about damn time we turned the tables on them.
Sarah! I haven't seen you for a while. I was starting to wonder if you had left us.
A while back in one of the comment threads, the topic came up of "How do we win?" I wish I had had time to pursue that discussion, because it never really got rolling. But it did occur to me that there are several questions that need to be answered before "How?" can be answered:
What do you consider to be a win?
What do you consider to be a loss?
Where is the dividing line between the two?
What is your ultimate ideal of a win?
What is an acceptable—i.e., marginal—win?
If losing is unavoidable, what is the ultimate loss and what are you willing to give up to avoid that ultimate loss?
Ever since that thread, these questions have been incubating in the back of my mind. As christians, I think the answers to those questions are slightly different than those of non-christians. Either way, it's clear that the battlefield is not directly a fight with guns and violence, it's a battle of ideas.
If you haven't seen Andrew Klavin's September 11th video, I highly recommend that you go watch it.
Thirdpower, if you believe that ACORN engages in election fraud and promoting child slavery, then you must accept Michael Moore's films as gospel.
Why's that Mark?
I 'believe' it because dozens of ACORN employees have been convicted of it in courts of law and have been caught on film. Even ACORN recognizes it now.
This is a fact.
What does Moore have to do w/ any of that?
"What does Moore have to do w/ any of that?"
Nothing. But saying it does might induce you to pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
Marky: "I don't see any sort of solutions (i.e. mechanism for a moral compass) coming from your side....except the blank gaze and heroin addicted like moan of "free market.""
Marky, you are by far the most hard headed individual I have ever encountered. I've had a growing conviction for some time that not only do you ignore things you don't like, you somehow don't even know that those things even exist. I've noticed this growing tendency for certain ideas to not even register in your consciousness, let alone recognized and rejected. This is one of those points.
It's not that we haven't told you about solutions, you just can't seem to see our answer. It's almost as if you've fallen under this…
"Dull the minds of these people;
deafen their ears and blind their eyes;
otherwise they might see with their eyes
and hear with their ears,
understand with their minds,
turn back, and be healed."
(Isaiah 6:10 HCSB)
Here is the core solution, which has been stated over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and…
Ken: "My central purpose is to live my life and take care of my family as I see fit, without using force or fraud against anyone else."
Notice those key words: "Force" and "Fraud". You have seen ALL of us say similar things numerous times. You've also seen us say that it is a legitimate role of government to define appropriate laws against fraud and force and to enforce those rules. Contract law is a huge part of that. There are valid laws against inappropriate contracts. There are also penalties for violating valid contracts.
You keep pretending that we favor anything goes, no rules whatsoever, scorched earth free markets. Nothing could be further from the truth.
What you can't seen to understand (maybe because you're mentally blind to it?) is that when you rant against corporate malfeasance, WE AGREE WITH YOU!* Yet you continue to act as if we don't. Why is that idea so hard to understand???
It's just that we ALSO oppose government malfeasance!
You've ranted that when a corporation (such as AIG) misbehaves, it should pay the price. WE AGREE WITH YOU! That's WHY we opposed the bailouts. If a company does something STUPID, bailing it out rewards the stupidity, guaranteeing that it will happen again. Yet somehow, you're perfectly fine with government doing just that.
So which is it Marky? Do you favor corporations paying for their actions? Or do you favor the government making the payment instead? You can't have both. We favor the corporations paying for their own actions.
(*Important: Someone receiving a large salary from a corporation for work the corporation considers to be valuable is not malfeasance unless it is due to force or fraud. If it's too high, then that's the kind of thing that market forces are the best at correcting.)
It's simple, Ed. He cannot admit error, and he cannot admit agreeing with you. His ego must be protected, y'see.
Ed, I got pretty exhausted over the summer with politics/arguing, and needed a breather from blogs. Two jobs + a new business are also eating a lot of my time. But with all this ACORN fall-out, I just had to see what Mark's response would be. I was not disappointed.
Absolutely, it's a battle of ideas. It's a battle of culture, it's a battle of definitions. Our side has been slow to realize this, and it's unfortunate that the Founders could not anticipate it. (Then again, how do you protect people from ideas?) Just to show you how insiduous the war is, consider that the Christian-affiliated university I work for now has a "social justice" requirement. I think the Internet, and blogs/videos in particular, will be of great value to us. I'm not ready to give up. But stuff like this does give me pause.
No kidding, Sarah.
I recently said over at the Acton Institute blog that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops were out to lunch with respect to their position on health care as a right. Didn't go over all that well, which is just one of the issues I have with my Magisterium.
Victoria Jackson at Big Hollywood has had some interesting cultural perspectives too.
Ken, the left has discovered the Christian kryptonite, which is our sense of guilt and compassion. Those qualities have been perverted into "social justice" (how I hate that term). If we have any hope of prevailing, Christians must stop indulging in guilt and understand that compassionate intentions are not the same as compassionate outcomes.
We also need to remember our Sun Tzu. I'm not convinced that many on our side understand the enemy all that well. But we're making progress in terms of figuring out that the thing they can least tolerate is the 10,000-watt light of day shining on them.
Christians should understand that true compassion lies in creating conditions that enable people to take care of themselves, and then expecting them to do so. You don't do people any favors by doing things for them.
Sarah, the one thing the "non-left" needs to discover is that the left will not play fair regardless of whether or not the non-left does. Hypocrisy, double standards, and Markanitwit's Standard Responses are de rigueur.
Responding in kind debases one to their level. I prefer to expose the falseness and pound it home. This doesn't cure the left, but it can educate and entertain the fence-sitters.
"It's pretty clear to me that he meant all of us in the original post."
Wrong. Unless you have made millions in a criminal fashion, of course. I think you got my point and now you are just trying to do the Nixon on me...yet again.
Ed, I am not a Marxist but again, nice try from pg. 1 of The Wingnut Playbook.
DJ, well, you have been quite successful in proving the point that I have been making for years...tap into your inner rage and pass off something as fact. Clearly, you haven't a fucking clue what the act of voter fraud is but I will give you an example. In the election of 1960, Jack Kennedy was elected due to voter fraud in Chicago. This is a fact. Several dead people voted thanks to Mayor Daley. BTW, notice how I have no problem admitting this but I'm certain that you would have an embolism if I pointed to the voter fraud that occurred in the 2000 election.
Signing "Mickey Mouse" on a voter registration form to make money for for work not done is not voter fraud.
I WIN!
Mark can't explain. It's one of his memorized chanting talking points. Nixon will come out next.
Unix-Jedi | Email | Homepage | 09.21.09 - 4:16 pm |
now you are just trying to do the Nixon on me...
Markadelphia | Email | Homepage | 09.22.09 - 3:10 pm
Can I call it? Or CAN I CALL IT?
Signing "Mickey Mouse" on a voter registration form to make money for for work not done is not voter fraud.
And bookcases full of laws, regulation, and court decisions aren't "regulation" according to you. (Regarding the Mortgage market.)
What the hell else is it? You're defrauding the electoral system. You're listing people who don't exist. You're enabling people to lie and say that that's them, and vote "provisionally" and illegally, and distort every measurement of voters. How even you can manage to justify that as not being election fraud would be staggering, if you weren't just fine with actual slavery, but whining at voluntary contracts.
After that, just being incapable of comprehending what "voter fraud" is is minor.
Don't forget that a (so-called) assault rifle ban isn't gun control, either.
Speaking of, o Awakened and Gigantic, what's stopping you from going door to door and collecting those semi-auto rifles whose cosmetic features and magazine capacity give you PSH on your own Awakened and Gigantic convictions and resources?
Marky: "I am not a Marxist"
Maybe not, but you are a socialist. The most important point is that these statements match YOUR actions.
Well now, check this out.
From October 31, 2008. Marky writes:
"Democrats have stolen more elections than Republicans, including one stolen by my hero JFK. Republicans are more racist now and have stolen more elections in recent years."
How are elections "stolen", oh Giant In Your Own Mind? VOTE FRAUD!!
You complain about stolen elections, then actively defend an organization which is routinely convicted of vote fraud AND under investigation in fully half the states in this country?!? Yeah. Mmmm'kay. Hey, as long as it benefits your side, it's okay?!?
I know you've given up pretending to be rational. Now how about admitting it to yourself?
Continuing on in the same comment:
"So what exactly what is Obama condemned to repeat? The era of FDR? Gee, that really turned out to be the worst thing that ever happened to this country. We rebuilt our nation after a series of failed policies and beat the strongest army the world has ever known. And it was the closest we have ever come to socialism. We aren't even going to come close to that with Senator Obama."
I guess you're sorta right. We haven't come as close as we did with FDR, we're much, much, much closer, what with the government takeover of GM and Chrysler, government mandated salaries in the private sector (with a freakin' Pay Czar who wants to "claw back" salaries already paid to executives), government control of most major banks, and socialized health care being crammed down our throats.
What was that about not even coming close to "the worst thing that ever happened to this country" with Senator Obama? Oh, that's right… Senator Obama wouldn't do that, but President Obama already has already surpassed the worst damage inflicted by FDR.
"Signing "Mickey Mouse" on a voter registration form to make money for for work not done is not voter fraud."
Signing "Mickey Mouse" on a voter registration form is voter fraud, specifically voter registration fraud, and in a federal election, it's a federal crime. I'm going to show you.
So, let's begin the lesson, teacher boy. Now pay attention, because all of this will be on the test. Golly, but this is going to be fun.
First, consider a hypothetical: If a person kills a co-worker to prevent the co-worker from ratting on him to his boss for goofing off and so getting paid for work he didn't do, does the act of killing the co-worker constitute murder? Of course it does. The reason for committing the act does not change the fact that the act is a crime, not with committing murder, and not with committing voter registration fraud. Saying the act was done for some other purpose is nothing more than excuse-making, particularly when such a claim comes through a defense attorney. You are relying on such an excuse, and you are executing an epic failure. Read on and you'll see it, 'cause I'm gonna 'splain it.
Now, let's look at this definition of voter registration fraud. You remember the term "voter registration fraud", don't you? It is the crime that some ACORN workers have been convicted of, as the article you linked to noted, and as many more articles I've shown you where to find also relate. Here is what it states [with emphasis added]:
"Voter registration fraud is the act of registering to vote, or registering someone else to vote, when fraud is involved. Voter registration fraud is considered to be a type of vote fraud.
"Different ways to commit fraud in the voter registration process include:
"* Filling out and submitting a voter registration card for a fictional (made-up) person. The made-up name on the card can be recognizable ("Mickey Mouse") or just a random made-up name, like "Jessica Random".
"* Filling out a voter registration card with the name of a real person, but without that person's consent, and forging his or her signature on the card."
Note the first and second bolded parts? That's the definition of voter registration fraud that I explained to you multiple times. And the third bolded part? That name mean anything to you?
Now, remember the definition of "fraud" that I quoted? Here it is again:
"fraud
"n. a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain
"n. deliberate deception or cheating intended to gain an advantage
"n. an act of such deception"
Damned fine definition, ain't it? Do you s'pose one can commit fraud to gain an unfair advantage with one's employer? But, I digress ... it is an interesting point, but it is not essential to my case.
Now, go read this, which is a .pdf file titled The Federal Crime of Election Fraud. It comes from a book titled Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses". You can find it at Amazon.com. In it, we find this [with emphasis added]:
"... there are essentially four types of federal «election fraud:»
"- First, there are schemes to purposely and corruptly register voters who either do not exist, or who are known by the putative defendant to be ineligible to vote under applicable state law."
"... purposely and corruptly register voters who ... do not exist ..." Now where have I heard that before?
But, you think this definition of voter registration fraud is not real, don't you? It's just someone else's opinion and so doesn't count, right? Well, let's try the federal statutes, in particular U.S. Code, Title 42, Chapter 20, Subchapter i, part (c) [with emphasis added]:
"Whoever knowingly or willfully gives false information as to his name, address or period of residence in the voting district for the purpose of establishing his eligibility to register or vote, or conspires with another individual for the purpose of encouraging his false registration to vote or illegal voting, or pays or offers to pay or accepts payment either for registration to vote or for voting shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both ..."
Giving false information to register a name to establish eligibility to vote in a federal election is a federal crime. It is irrelevant if any other purpose was involved, which means making the excuse that "I did it to get paid for work I didn't do" doesn't keep the act from being a federal crime. It doesn't work for killing a co-worker nor does it work for being a lazy worker. The prima facia purpose of putting a name on a registration form is to make the person so named eligible to vote, regardless of any other purpose for committing the crime.
I've barely scratched the surface, and I haven't even TOUCHED the statutes of fifty states.
Now, you would have us believe that what the ACORN workers of that FactCheck.org article did was nothing more than defraud their employer. After all, even a prosecuting attorney admitted to that particular fraud. So, why did they plead guilty to "providing false information on voter registration forms"? Because their excuse wasn't enough; they couldn't get away with voter registration fraud.
You'd have a case if they got off on that excuse, but they didn't, and claiming to be right on those grounds is your epic failure.
Ken,
Regarding compassion, that was precisely my point. Christians must realize that to promote government dependence is to promote slavery. And it shifts the focus from God as authority to government as authority.
DJ,
No, we don't want to debase ourselves by stooping to the other side's level. What we need to do is discover their kryoptonite -- which I believe is the truth -- and exploit the hell out of it, like they do with us.
Your patience, and indeed the patience of everyone here, in dealing with Mark is impressive. But to paraphrase the great Samuel Johnson in Black Adder III, arguing with Mark is like fitting wheels to a tomato: time-consuming and completely pointless. Unless the point is to convince bystanders of the vacuity of typical leftist thought. Or to indulge in some easy sport. :)
Sarah,
Actually, Truth is also our defense from them.
Consider their recent attacks via our moral code. When we disagree with Obama, they call us racists. Now any decent, moral person does not want to actually be a racist. So their thinking is that if they call us racist, that will cause us to shrink away from shrink away from our disagreement because it "leads" to the charge of racism.
But all that's necessary for the accusation to lose its effectiveness is for everyone to recognize the truth—the accusation itself is a lie. When we disagree with Obama's policies, it has absolutely nothing to do with his skin color, and everything to do with the negative effects of those policies in every country they've been tried in throughout history. In other words, it's rational thinking, not racism.
Of course, there is always the possibility of biases and prejudices coloring our judgment, but as rational creatures we are capable of examining our own biases and determining if they have tainted our reasoning. But once we identify and examine our own biases and their potential impact on our judgement, then we can be sure that the charges actually are invalid.
For example, I also disagree strongly with white guys (and women) who promote the same ideas as Obama for exactly the same reasons. (Gore, Kerry, Kennedy, Schumer, Specter, Frank, etc.) I also have no trouble allying myself with black, brown, red, green and orange people who also reasonably disagree with Obama. Therefore, race isn't playing a role in that judgement.
In other words, the examined truth is the antidote to false accusations. Unfortunately, that doesn't prevent me from getting angry at the lies. This does help some:
“Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and falsely say every kind of evil against you because of Me.”
(Matthew 5:11 HCSB)
"What we need to do is discover their kryoptonite -- which I believe is the truth -- and exploit the hell out of it, like they do with us. "
Been tryin', Sarah, but truth is independent of whether or not one likes it, and their minds don't work that way.
No, they don't, DJ, but we're not trying to convince them. We're trying to convince the ones who haven't had their brains completely lobotomized by leftism (leftotomized?)
Leftomized, methinks.
As he usually does, Bill Whittle lays the hammer down.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>