Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »
Reply To Thread

Accorn Supports Child ProstitutionFollow

#152 Sep 17 2009 at 2:30 PM Rating: Good
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
Quote:
Why in the nine hells am I having to tell you to come out of the ivory tower?


I was going to make a joke about Ganesha, but then I stubbed my toe.

I thought you should know that.


Muse made a new album. I thought you should know that.

It's not bad.


The cover's pretty.



...PRETTY AWESOME.
#153 Sep 17 2009 at 4:39 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Of course "any" amount of doubt is not enough to shut down an entire organization.


Don't be so darn literal. I'm not going to repeat things I've already said. By "shut down" I mean that Acorn should be restricted from filing any applications for federal aid on behalf of a third party, and by "doubt" I mean "doubt that they can reliably be trusted to fill out said forms on behalf of third parties without fraud".

And Yes. If there is even the slightest doubt that an organization entrusted to be a gatekeeper of the taxpayers money is doing so honestly, they should be blocked from continuing to do so. Then there should be an investigation. And if and only if they satisfy those investigating that the trust they are asking us all to place upon them is warranted, then they'll be granted permission to operate in that manner again.


This is not some private company using their own money to do things. That would be bad, but would also be self correcting. They get a bad rep. People boycott them. They clean up their act. Acorn is handing out our money. Thus, the bar should be set a bit higher. If we're going to have government aid programs, and are going to entrust organizations like Acorn to determine qualification for said programs and otherwise act as middlemen in the process, then they should be subject to the absolute highest scrutiny.


I'm not sure why this is even debated. If the accounting firm handling your money was involved in an embezzlement scam, you'd certainly want significant assurances that the problems have been resolved before letting them resume handling your money. That's just plain reasonable. Yet, for some bizarre reason many of you seem to want to just let them continue what they're doing, and sure... we'll "investigate", but let's not interrupt them while we're doing it, and maybe in a few years we'll get some results after everyone has forgotten about this...


If you really care about helping those in need, and you understand that there are scarce resources available to provide for those in need, I'd think that you would want to go after any organization if there was even a hint that they were handing out said resources to those who don't really need them. Afterall, they're technically stealing them from those who do need them.


It's just that to me, if you want to push an agenda which includes providing more such services and goods to those in need, it would behoove you to show that you care that they are administered properly. It's a hard enough sell to get people to be willing to give up some of their earnings to provide for others. You're asking them to trust that the government will do so in a way that is better than they would have used those earnings themselves. Examples like what Acorn is doing make your own argument massively weaker. It's just strange that instead of falling over themselves to remove this problem, most people on the left seem to just want to look the other way and ignore the problem.


How do you expect to win the "we should let the government handle charity" argument if this is the example people see? I just think it's counterproductive, not just for the country as a whole, but certainly to the "cause" you claim to support.

Edited, Sep 17th 2009 5:40pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#154 Sep 17 2009 at 4:50 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
CBD wrote:
Isn't gbaji an engineer of some sort? For such a strong math background, he's terrible at proof.


I'm sorry. When did "came to a different conclusion than I" equate to "terrible at proof"? You're starting with an assumed end result and working backwards, discounting any process which does not arrive at the same result. I think your own bias is intruding on your ability to know good reasoning from bad.


I'll also repeat the same point I've made to pensive a dozen times. Somewhat by definition any discussion of politics, economics, and pretty much every other subject we debate here is about subjective opinion. I know that it's a popular Liberal tactic lately to equate their opinions with the "truth" as though there's one and only one right answer and they have it. But that's just not the case.


The very fact that you somehow equate a political argument with a "proof" shows the degree to which you've bought into that idea. It's absurd. We proceed from subjective opinions about the "right way" for society to work. We can certainly debate the qualities, benefits, and disadvantages of each of them, but to assume that any one of them is supported by anything more than a pile of subjective reasoning, much less that there's some form of proof you could present which would show absolutely which answer is correct is ridiculous.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#155 Sep 17 2009 at 5:01 PM Rating: Good
****
4,512 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm sorry. When did "came to a different conclusion than I" equate to "terrible at proof"? You're starting with an assumed end result and working backwards, discounting any process which does not arrive at the same result. I think your own bias is intruding on your ability to know good reasoning from bad.


I'm a math major. You have no base to come off and tell me I have no idea what proof is or that I'm misunderstanding the concept here. You fail at it. Play again next time.

EDIT: Because you still won't get it, most people base their opinions off of facts, be they citations from experts or personal anecdotes - the former is obviously preferred. You base your opinions off a bunch of "facts" that you create to fit the situation at hand. This isn't a liberal/conservative thing. There are just as many liberal posters here who do the same thing.


Edited, Sep 17th 2009 9:03pm by CBD

Edited, Sep 17th 2009 9:27pm by CBD
#156 Sep 17 2009 at 5:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
CBD wrote:
You base your opinions off a bunch of "facts" that you create to fit the situation at hand. [...] There are just as many liberal posters here who do the same thing.

So... one? Smiley: grin
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#157 Sep 17 2009 at 5:50 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
CBD wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm sorry. When did "came to a different conclusion than I" equate to "terrible at proof"? You're starting with an assumed end result and working backwards, discounting any process which does not arrive at the same result. I think your own bias is intruding on your ability to know good reasoning from bad.


I'm a math major. You have no base to come off and tell me I have no idea what proof is or that I'm misunderstanding the concept here. You fail at it. Play again next time.


I said nothing of the sort. What I did say was that the concept of "proof" you are using is virtually irrelevant to a political discussion. There are no absolutes to start from. Just opinion. You can certainly use logical forms to verify the consistency of an argument or position from a set of assumptions, but you can't validate the assumptions themselves since they are pretty universally based on theoretical political models which are debated.

Quote:
EDIT: Because you still won't get it, most people base their opinions off of facts, be they citations from experts or personal anecdotes - the former is obviously preferred.


Nope. Neither of those are "facts". For someone making a big stink about his skill with math and proofs, you fail miserably. Those experts are just additional sources of opinion. They are *not* facts. Facts are things like "A horse is a mammal", "the city of <whatever> is X feet above sea level", "the average rainfall in the Amazon Basin is Y inches". Those are facts.

"<some expert> says that global warming is real" is not a fact. It's an opinion. No matter how much of an expert that person is, his statements are opinions (unless he's actually stating facts, of course). Now, you can properly call it a "fact" that he made the statement. But that does not make the statement he made a "fact".


Quote:
You base your opinions off a bunch of "facts" that you create to fit the situation at hand.


No. I state my opinion that I believe something to be a fact. Yes. The formulation is literally incorrect, but I assume that anyone smart enough to read understands that when someone says something like "It is a fact that increased pollution will lead to health problems for those living in the area" is actually stating an opinion. The word "fact" is commonly used as an allegation of fact (ie: an opinion that something is true).


I don't based my opinions on those things. Those things are my opinions. If you've paid any attention at all, I overwhelmingly base my opinions based on a logical progression from a common set of beliefs I hold. The resulting opinions and positions are therefor consistent with the core ideology. That those resulting opinions don't match yours does not make mine wrong, nor yours. As I've explained numerous times, it most likely leads from a core difference of opinion regarding some very very basic ideological assumptions.

I believe that individual freedoms are the most important thing to protect in a society. Every single political position I hold derives from that basic belief (that's a simplistic form of it of course). Most liberals hold positions which are consistent with a belief that the good of the whole outweighs the rights and freedoms of the individual. Thus, they arrive at different conclusions and hold different opinions regarding a whole range of issues.

Neither have anything to do with whether one has the "facts on his side".

Quote:
This isn't a liberal/conservative thing. There are just as many liberal posters here who do the same thing.


I think you're being overly sensitive to an irrelevant figure of speech. Try to understand what I'm saying, not obsess over possible meanings of each and every word. It might help you...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#158 Sep 17 2009 at 6:14 PM Rating: Good
****
4,512 posts
gbaji wrote:
There are no absolutes to start from. Just opinion.


Bullsh*t. If we're discussing how to address poverty, an absolute would be that people need to eat in order to avoid dying. An absolute would be that some people in the world are so poor that they cannot afford to regularly buy food. There is no arguing these two statements. Opinions come into play when people attempt to state if this is or is not a problem, how it is or is not a problem, whether or not it should be addressed, and how to address it should that be the general consensus.

This is how political debate usually works. What you do, and have admitted to doing, is looking at the situation and tried to figure out why it is that way. When you get called on to support your evidence, you demand that it just is. That's you suggesting it is a fact. You very, very rarely provide proof of the fact you wish to share.

gbaji wrote:
Those experts are just additional sources of opinion.


Not necessarily. Learn to stop thinking in absolutes.

gbaji wrote:
The word "fact" is commonly used as an allegation of fact (ie: an opinion that something is true).


Most people use words to mean what, in fact(!), the words mean (shock!). Anyone can bang out some garbage and claim it makes sense in their head because they redefined a few words here and there.

A zebra tendon keys the mountain. What don't you understand?!

gbaji wrote:
I believe that individual freedoms are the most important thing to protect in a society. Every single political position I hold derives from that basic belief (that's a simplistic form of it of course).


Poorly stated with many obvious counter-examples depending on how we twist things around with the concept of "freedom."

Example: You want to violate President Obama's freedom to privacy in order to entertain your own ridiculous notion regarding place of birth.
Example: You do not want me to be free to marry the man I love because I am gay.

Regardless of that, let me make sure I understand your thought process:

1. Jophiel states that "Problem A" exists.
2. You read about "Problem A" and think "how does this effect my personal freedoms?"
3. You then make connections between "My personal freedoms are being removed" or "my personal freedoms are being supported" and "Problem A."
4. You post this and act like its just sooo obvious when questioned about your logic. In this process, you act like what you state is fact. When asked to back your facts up, you refuse to because "duh." Eventually, when really, really backed into a corner, you'll try to claim that political debate has no need for fact, and hope that no one notices how dumb that sounds.

gbaji wrote:
Most liberals


Just for the record, every time you write this I stop reading the sentence because I know you'll be making a stupid, sweeping generalization. I just don't feel like spending all my time insisting that you have an intelligent debate without resorting to stereotyping large groups of people, organizations, or what have you.

gbaji wrote:
Neither have anything to do with whether one has the "facts on his side".


Wrong.

gbaji wrote:
I think you're being overly sensitive to an irrelevant figure of speech. Try to understand what I'm saying, not obsess over possible meanings of each and every word. It might help you...


Try to only say things relevant to the discussion, not just babble on as though we all care about every little verbal fart that passes through your head. It might help you...

Jophiel wrote:
CBD wrote:
You base your opinions off a bunch of "facts" that you create to fit the situation at hand. [...] There are just as many liberal posters here who do the same thing.

So... one? Smiley: grin


Well, he writes enough for about twenty-seven. I have an expert who agrees with me so this is unquestionable fact. Don't question me!

Edited, Sep 17th 2009 10:16pm by CBD
#159 Sep 17 2009 at 7:03 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
CBD wrote:
gbaji wrote:
There are no absolutes to start from. Just opinion.


Bullsh*t. If we're discussing how to address poverty, an absolute would be that people need to eat in order to avoid dying. An absolute would be that some people in the world are so poor that they cannot afford to regularly buy food. There is no arguing these two statements.


And no one is.

Quote:
Opinions come into play when people attempt to state if this is or is not a problem, how it is or is not a problem, whether or not it should be addressed, and how to address it should that be the general consensus.


Sure. We're on the same page. You'll note that we're not disagreeing with the facts though. We're disagreeing with the opinion. You need to understand the difference between "persuasion" and "proof".

Quote:
This is how political debate usually works. What you do, and have admitted to doing, is looking at the situation and tried to figure out why it is that way. When you get called on to support your evidence, you demand that it just is. That's you suggesting it is a fact. You very, very rarely provide proof of the fact you wish to share.


Because it's a null argument. You (or others) demand "proof" of something which is by it's very nature "opinion". You then declare my opinion false because I can't "prove" that it's true, and allow your own position to be declared true by default. Of course, you've avoided applying the same rigorous requirements to your own positions, but that's apparently just fine...


I primarily base my positions on three things:

1. How they derive from a common ideological starting point. Basically. Is this position on this issue consistent with my core ideology?

2. How they are supported by historical evidence. Basically, I'll find examples showing similar cases and look at the results.

3. Anecdotal experience. How do my own observations and life experiences fit into the issue and in what way to they form my position?

None of those can properly be called "proof". They are at best "subjective reasoning". But guess what? None of the positions I'm arguing against can be called proof either. They're equally subjective. We all engage in attempting to declare our own beliefs to be "true" and/or "based on fact". Some of us (me usually) can at least state a chain of reasoning behind the position itself. Most of us (the folks I argue against usually) simply parrot some third party which declares their position to be true, and are done with it. I suppose that's a simplistic way to decide what to believe in, but for a thinking person like myself it's ultimately pretty unsatisfying.


Quote:
gbaji wrote:
Those experts are just additional sources of opinion.


Not necessarily. Learn to stop thinking in absolutes.


*cough*. Stop cherry picking your quotes of me and then criticizing me for doing something I didn't do. I said that those statements can be factual. Just that they usually aren't (or at least the ones used to support political argument usually aren't).

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
The word "fact" is commonly used as an allegation of fact (ie: an opinion that something is true).


Most people use words to mean what, in fact(!), the words mean (shock!). Anyone can bang out some garbage and claim it makes sense in their head because they redefined a few words here and there.


Common usage is common usage. Do you scream at the TV while watching court dramas? Cause it sounds like this is your own problem and not mine. It's a fact that I'm going to continue using the word fact whenever I factually determine that the facts of the situation support my use of the word facts to get my point across.

And if it bothers you on some deep level, I'll do it even more... ;)

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
I believe that individual freedoms are the most important thing to protect in a society. Every single political position I hold derives from that basic belief (that's a simplistic form of it of course).


Poorly stated with many obvious counter-examples depending on how we twist things around with the concept of "freedom."


Sure. I said it was a simplistic form of it. I don't feel like spending the 40,000 words it would take to fully explain my ideological views on liberty, freedom, the individual, and how a society should work to promote those things.


Quote:
1. Jophiel states that "Problem A" exists.
2. You read about "Problem A" and think "how does this effect my personal freedoms?"
3. You then make connections between "My personal freedoms are being removed" or "my personal freedoms are being supported" and "Problem A."
4. You post this and act like its just sooo obvious when questioned about your logic. In this process, you act like what you state is fact. When asked to back your facts up, you refuse to because "duh." Eventually, when really, really backed into a corner, you'll try to claim that political debate has no need for fact, and hope that no one notices how dumb that sounds.


No. I "think" about problem A. I express my opinion about problem A. Usually, the only time I go looking for information is when someone else expresses an opinion and I'm trying to figure out where they're coming from, or they reference a specific case or event the details of which I am not aware of.

I don't read other sources to decide what my position is. I may read to get the details of a situation in order to decide how it fits into my position, but that's not the same thing.

And yeah. I'm not "backed into a corner". Usually, I'm constantly annoyed by people bringing up irrelevant side arguments as a means to distract from the main issue at hand. Like someone obsession over the exact meaning and use of the word "fact" instead of actually addressing what I said.


This whole section is an attempt to derail the conversation. You get that right? You may be doing it subconsciously, but that's what it is about. The case against Acorn is so astounding and overwhelming that those who started out defending them because it was just one person, then just two, and well... maybe some more, are pretty much left with nothing except to attempt to change the subject.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
Most liberals


Just for the record, every time you write this I stop reading the sentence because I know you'll be making a stupid, sweeping generalization. I just don't feel like spending all my time insisting that you have an intelligent debate without resorting to stereotyping large groups of people, organizations, or what have you.


Wait. So you're suggesting that a group of people who share a common set of positions on a whole range of social and political issues cannot possibly be judged based on this commonality? Why not?

The label exists for a reason. Feel free to use a different one if you want. For me, it's a time saving device. I could have said "Most people who collectively believe that we should use the power of the government to tax those who are successful to provide for those who are not out of a belief that this will result in a greater society, and who support universal health care, marriage benefits for gay couples, oppose large corporations and the general accumulation of large amounts of wealth, etc....". Does that pretty well sum up the group we're talking about? Did I leave anything out?

If you want me to, I'll write that every single time I'd normally use a word like "liberal", or "social liberalism" or whatever. Do you want that? Or can we all just agree that when I use the word "liberal", that's what I mean?

[quote]Try to only say things relevant to the discussion, not just babble on as though we all care about every little verbal fart that passes through your head. It might help you...[/quote]

/shrug

You're free to not read or respond to my posts. No one's twisting your arms here. It is strange though that you choose to ignore the points I'm making and obsess over what is essentially decoration. Kinda telling really...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#160 Sep 17 2009 at 7:05 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
You actually wrote enough responses to break the quote system.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#161 Sep 17 2009 at 7:38 PM Rating: Good
****
4,512 posts
gbaji wrote:
You need to understand the difference between "persuasion" and "proof".


Let's go back to an old statement you haven't provided proof of yet:

http://wow.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=4&mid=1251160228427858&page=1&howmany=50#m1251243427162637189 wrote:
Good diagnosticians are in high demand. They'll tend to gravitate to places like the US, where they can get paid more. What's left is the "lowest common denominator" medicine which you'll typically get in the UK.


Provable* fact - good diagnosticians are in high demand.
Provable* fact - good diagnosticians are paid more in the US.
Opinion - Good diagnosticians will tend to migrate to the U.S. where they will be paid more.

You present the opinion as fact. I'm sure you can find twenty different loopholes or more statements demanding that it is clearly an opinion, please don't feel the need to reply with that.

This is a trend with you. You make an opinion into fact. We then say "citation" because anything presented as fact should be provable.

* - note that by provable I mean "for the purpose of discussion, pretend that both of these statements have had accurate, applicable citations provided

gbaji wrote:
You (or others) demand "proof" of something which is by it's very nature "opinion".


Beating a dead horse now - we want proof for what you state as fact. If you wish something to be stated as an opinion, you need to write it so that it will come off as such. We aren't here to read your mind.

On a side note, I find it extremely strange that someone would do anything just to support their key ideology. It explains a lot though.

gbaji wrote:
*cough*. Stop cherry picking your quotes of me and then criticizing me for doing something I didn't do. I said that those statements can be factual. Just that they usually aren't (or at least the ones used to support political argument usually aren't).


I am well aware of what you were discussing. My statement was in reference to that.

gbaji wrote:
Common usage is common usage.


I was telling you that your common usage is really not that common. The word "fact" is only used as "opinion I feel is completely and undeniably true" by sensationalist @#%^s. See: bible thumpers, Sarah Palin, most people on one far end of the political spectrum.

gbaji wrote:
Like someone obsession over the exact meaning and use of the word "fact" instead of actually addressing what I said.


Except for, you know, how it addresses you desire to make factual statements when you don't have any support of them at all by claiming that all political discussion involves opinion disguised as fact.

gbaji wrote:
This whole section is an attempt to derail the conversation. You get that right? You may be doing it subconsciously, but that's what it is about. The case against Acorn is so astounding and overwhelming that those who started out defending them because it was just one person, then just two, and well... maybe some more, are pretty much left with nothing except to attempt to change the subject.


Er, no? Every statement I made in this thread still stands as of right now given the information released. Five cases are no more meaningful than two cases. That was the entire reason for my original post about proof. There's a reason we have a distinction between theorems and laws.

gbaji wrote:
The label exists for a reason. BLAH BLAH BLAH


You know damn well what I meant, quit playing word games to pretend you're clueless.

gbaji wrote:
You're free to not read or respond to my posts. No one's twisting your arms here. It is strange though that you choose to ignore the points I'm making and obsess over what is essentially decoration. Kinda telling really...


Telling of what? Finish your thoughts, please.

Edited, Sep 17th 2009 11:42pm by CBD
#162 Sep 17 2009 at 7:41 PM Rating: Good
****
7,861 posts
CBD wrote:
Just for the record, every time you write this I stop reading the sentence because I know you'll be making a stupid, sweeping generalization. I just don't feel like spending all my time insisting that you have an intelligent debate without resorting to stereotyping large groups of people, organizations, or what have you.

Pot...kettle, and all that.
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#163 Sep 17 2009 at 7:42 PM Rating: Good
****
4,512 posts
Kastigir wrote:
Pot...kettle, and all that.


Good god, gbaji is a large group of people?
#164 Sep 17 2009 at 7:48 PM Rating: Good
****
7,861 posts
CBD wrote:
Good god, gbaji is a large group of people?

No, simply stating that Liberals do the EXACT same things to Conservatives, but I guess that's alright.
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#165 Sep 17 2009 at 7:53 PM Rating: Good
****
4,512 posts
Kastigir wrote:
CBD wrote:
Good god, gbaji is a large group of people?

No, simply stating that Liberals do the EXACT same things to Conservatives, but I guess that's alright.


I must be missing something here because you seemed to imply I was being hypocritical. I don't agree with either side doing it and was replying explicitly to gbaji's use of it.
#166 Sep 17 2009 at 7:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kastigir wrote:
CBD wrote:
Good god, gbaji is a large group of people?

No, simply stating that Liberals do the EXACT same things to Conservatives, but I guess that's alright.
Your face does the exact same thing.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#167 Sep 17 2009 at 8:41 PM Rating: Good
****
7,861 posts
CBD wrote:
I must be missing something here because you seemed to imply I was being hypocritical. I don't agree with either side doing it and was replying explicitly to gbaji's use of it.

Perhaps not, but you used it in an argument when your side does the very same thing. It doesn't really give your side any moral high ground.
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#168 Sep 17 2009 at 8:55 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
And Yes. If there is even the slightest doubt that an organization entrusted to be a gatekeeper of the taxpayers money is doing so honestly, they should be blocked from continuing to do so.


Well, alright then chief.

I'll meet you in Oklahoma for the armed revolution*, because the only world where we're going to get this is one+ without any government activity at all.










*suicide pact
+the afterlife


Quote:
That's just plain reasonable. Yet, for some bizarre reason many of you seem to want to just let them continue what they're doing, and sure... we'll "investigate", but let's not interrupt them while we're doing it, and maybe in a few years we'll get some results after everyone has forgotten about this...


Maybe the reason I'm literal with you (in this case) is because when people aren't literal or at least charitable about the words of someone else, they embarrass themselves by intuiting malicious or complicit motives in someone's prescription which do not exist. See, I intuit constant alternate meanings to the **** that you write. I intuit alternate meanings to the things that anyone writes, often dozens, and many times, they are directly contradictory. It's not hard, and should be easy for anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of what language does. The difficult part is picking one to act on, and most of the time, the principle I use to do that is the one that makes the other dude look the best that he can, in both intent and knowledge.

Do you know what I would pick a meaning according to that principle?

Edited, Sep 18th 2009 1:00am by Pensive
#169 Sep 17 2009 at 8:59 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Quote:
And Yes. If there is even the slightest doubt that an organization entrusted to be a gatekeeper of the taxpayers money is doing so honestly, they should be blocked from continuing to do so.


Well, alright then chief.

I'll meet you in Oklahoma for the armed revolution*, because the only world where we're going to get this is one+ without any government activity at all.










*suicide pact
+the afterlife
$DEITY would like to have a word with you.
#170 Sep 17 2009 at 9:00 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
$DEITY would like to have a word with you.


Goddamn those prosperity gospels
#171 Sep 17 2009 at 9:04 PM Rating: Good
****
4,512 posts
Kastigir wrote:
Perhaps not, but you used it in an argument when your side does the very same thing. It doesn't really give your side any moral high ground.


What the hell is "[my] side?" I'm disagreeing with gbaji, therefore I must be a liberal, therefore I must generalize conservatives? I don't feel that a few videos mean Acorn management is giving the orders to help prostitutes, therefore I must be a liberal, therefore I must generalize conservatives?

This is like varus and his nebulous "you liberals." Who the fuck are these people, and why are they speaking for me when they don't even know my opinion?
#172 Sep 17 2009 at 9:08 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
I'll also repeat the same point I've made to pensive a dozen times. Somewhat by definition any discussion of politics, economics, and pretty much every other subject we debate here is about subjective opinion. I know that it's a popular Liberal tactic lately to equate their opinions with the "truth" as though there's one and only one right answer and they have it. But that's just not the case.


I can't adequately express how much I detest it when people are selective about when they want to enjoy judgmental relativism. On second though I suppose that that is untrue, because selective interpretation of relativism is totally consistent with it, and expected, but I suppose what I detest is truly the ignorance regarding what you are doing, rather than the thing that you are doing; your intentional state, your understanding about the process itself, I suppose then, is the object of the detest.

For example, if you were a math test, and I told you that your momma was fat, primarily because she was made from an entire ream of paper, it would not a harsh enough dis for the test, that is to say dis-test to express the detest. Similarly, if I were to strike the very existence of you and all of your progeny and ancestry from the cosmos, thereby de-testing the entire world of even the concept of test, the detest would not be at high enough levels to express the detest.
#173 Sep 21 2009 at 9:43 AM Rating: Good
Just an update to this story: Juan Veras, the employee accused of trying to help the prostitutes, actually reported the couple to the authorities shortly after the conversation. There was also evidence of tampering on the tapes, heavy editing, and a language barrier that indicates Mr. Veras didn't realize they were referencing trafficking children.

NYT article here: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/09/19/us/politics/AP-US-ACORNs-Troubles.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
#174REDACTED, Posted: Sep 21 2009 at 11:40 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Cat,
#175 Sep 21 2009 at 12:20 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Cat,

Quote:
a language barrier that indicates Mr. Veras didn't realize they were referencing trafficking children.


no hable ingles?

Hey, it worked for Sammy Sosa, didn't it?


That was Sammy Sosa, right?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#176 Sep 21 2009 at 8:05 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
catwho, pet mage of Jabober wrote:
Just an update to this story: Juan Veras, the employee accused of trying to help the prostitutes, actually reported the couple to the authorities shortly after the conversation. There was also evidence of tampering on the tapes, heavy editing, and a language barrier that indicates Mr. Veras didn't realize they were referencing trafficking children.

NYT article here: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/09/19/us/politics/AP-US-ACORNs-Troubles.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all


The article you linked doesn't even mention Vera. However, his account of the situation is "shaky" at best. He mentions what happened to his cousin, a police officer? He mentions it to a couple other officers, but nothing is done?

I've seen some local reporting on this, and while I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that his actions might have resulted in something being done, From the reports I've seen he basically dropped the issue because the two doing the sting never followed up with the paperwork (for obvious reasons). We can only speculate as to what would have happened if this had been a real pimp and prostitute, but the question is: Why didn't he go to his employers? Why didn't he find out what he should do in a case like this?


This is part of why so many are blaming Acorn and not just the individuals working there. The normal procedure if you're not sure what to do is to get someone who does to guide you. It's a structural problem with an organization when you have people doing stuff like this either knowing it is wrong, or not knowing they aren't supposed to do it, or not knowing what to do in the situation at hand. It calls to question an environment in which workers appear to just be told to sign people up and pass the paperwork along without giving much thought at all to fraud or abuse or criminal activity.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 283 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (283)