ACORN

[Zenda]

I'll try to stay on topic, this time, MEAT :unsure:

I know ACORN is corrupt

According to Wikipedia ACORN has over 350,000 members and more than 850 neighborhood chapters in over 100 cities across the United States, as well as in Argentina, Canada, Mexico, and Peru. Many work on a voluntairy basis. Some of those might take offense, if you call them corrupt.

As far as I can find out, in all cases where ACORN members were found to have violated a law, those were expelled from the ACORN organisation.

If ties between Obama and organisations like ACORN is the best the Republican Party can come up with, they surely deserve to loose :glare:

[kandrathe]

So, if I have this straight...

No you don't have it straight. The single or minority opinion, and voice becomes more powerless the closer that group approaches one. Our societies have so jaded people to sources of information, that they assume everyone is lying to them which makes it very difficult to organize anyone toward a common goal. Institutionalized altruism is another name for forcing someone to do something against their will because the majority thinks it is a beneficent idea.

I have not discussed whether we should try or not, only that there are many topics to exert effort toward. All things being equal, I think its horrible that children in west Africa are forced to pick beans, but it is also a problem that West Africa should deal with since we've got our own issues closer to home. Will I feel guilty drinking my morning coffee? A little. If you want to get angry at something, look at the children around the world that dig through garbage dumps for food and items to sell. If you want to get outraged about exploiting children, look at the sex trade and slave trade in SE Asia and the Middle East. If you want to get really outraged, look at the MILLIONS of people killed and enslaved in Darfur and Sudan. Somewhere further down on my PO list are children sewing sequins on shirts in New Delhi.

Check out the lives of children of migrant farm workers in North America, or the sweat shops in New York, or Los Angeles. I'm concerned about all the ills in the world, but it seems that there is too much to do here to try to focus on every other nations inability to enforce their own laws. Check the label in the clothing you are wearing now. Where did it come from? Where did the fibers come from, and are you certain that it was made morally? Some people here seem to think they are morally superior because they care. I would say I care, but I'm not deluding myself by thinking that it will make a difference if I give up using cocoa, or sugar, or coffee, or vanilla, or wearing clothing, or eating vegetables, or using computers, or buying products from China, India, Hong Kong, or a bazillion other places or products that may be made immorally according to Western standards. If there is no organized effort, and you are not ready to lead one, then why should you or anyone decide to make the altruistic stand to suffer in the name of moral gravitas?

Give me the name of any common product, and we can discern its level of immorality. You, Shadow, and everyone here all have bought hundreds of products in 2008 that are burdened with immorality.

[ShadowHM]

If there is no organized effort, and you are not ready to lead one, then why should you or anyone decide to make the altruistic stand to suffer in the name of moral gravitas?

To diminish my karmic burden? :rolleyes: To assuage my concience? If doing without certain items seems like undue suffering to you, then use them. I will make my choices and you can make yours. Please don't suggest that just because you think it is futile gives you carte blanche to avoid making those choices.

Give me the name of any common product, and we can discern its level of immorality. You, Shadow, and everyone here all have bought hundreds of products in 2008 that are burdened with immorality.

Of course we have. We all have to make our own choices as to where and how we can minimize our impact. You still seem to be advocating not even bothering to try. :ph34r:

I am bewildered by your continued disparagement of what you call 'institutionalized altruism'. This topic, as Jester suggested, does deserve its own thread. At the end, we are likely to still disagree, but I may understand your viewpoint better.

[Jester]

My main question, even before this last debate between McCain and Obama, was how Obama was supposidly tied in with ACORN, and I still don't know... I know ACORN is corrupt, I know Obama had something to do with ACORN, but I I'm not sure how that effects his now, if at all.

Do you have an example of the ACORN organization itself being corrupt, as opposed to one of its employees submitting false voter registrations? As best I can tell, the clearest explanation for all the cases I've heard so far is someone trying to get paid for registering voters without actually doing the leg work.

Poor employee oversight is a bad thing, but it's hardly the kind of problem that makes them a political liability.

-Jester

One view, with accompanying fact sheet. Definitely sympathetic, but it appears to be fact-based.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/10...and_alleged.php

[Mordekhuul]

Poor employee oversight is a bad thing, but it's hardly the kind of problem that makes them a political liability.

No way, Jester. McCain said it might destroy the fabric of our democracy. Didn't you get the memo?

=)

[Taem]

Do you have an example of the ACORN organization itself being corrupt, as opposed to one of its employees submitting false voter registrations? As best I can tell, the clearest explanation for all the cases I've heard so far is someone trying to get paid for registering voters without actually doing the leg work.

Poor employee oversight is a bad thing, but it's hardly the kind of problem that makes them a political liability.

-Jester

One view, with accompanying fact sheet. Definitely sympathetic, but it appears to be fact-based.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/10...and_alleged.php

Stating that ALL of ACORN is corrupt is an incorrect statement on my part. As you and Zenda pointed out, a few people who work for ACORN are the culprits, not the entity as a whole. Did you see my post a few spots down (I think it was a comment too you also) about Mickey Mouse registering to vote by ACORN? However, with so many "bad: employees working for ACORN, even if the company itself has high moral principles, they need to do a better job of screening their employees or voulenteers otherwise, why not call the company who enlists the help of these types of people corrupt?

[vor_lord]

they need to do a better job of screening their employees or voulenteers

Do you have suggestions? They are required by law to send in even forms that are fraudulent. Do you have any information on how many forms that their screening process fails to identify in this manner? Other than identifying them by writing what do you suggest they do?

People who work as canvassers doing this kind of work are not exactly the most reliable workforce. Are you going to quit your job to work for ACORN? It's not skilled work, doesn't pay much, and will suffer as much as any organization that makes regular use of temp workers.

I've done that, worked many manual labor temp jobs. I know something about the nature of people. High turnover

[Zenda]

Like Vor_lord said, ACORN is required by US law to deliver all forms they collected. I'm sure you can see why, MEAT. So, there is hardly any reason for screening, as long as forms don't get dumped somewhere. They are not even required to check the collected forms in any way, but they do. And in all these cases of registration 'fraud', it was the ACORN organisation who alerted officials, as far as I can see.

What is wrong here, is that organisations like ACORN are apparantly needed to get people registered for voting. The good thing here, is that non-Americans got some insight in your election procedures. Believe it or not, but before this episode I really assumed the US had a good working system for voter registration :huh:

It's election time, MEAT, don't fall for it even if you are Republican. Vote according to your political beliefs, and forget all the campaign stunts. In fact, if you didn't know what to vote 3 months ago, it's propably better not to vote at all.

Btw, I always find it hard to believe that obvious dirty tricks like this ACORN affaire can actually play a significant role in your elections (other then contempt ensuring defeat for the tricksters, ofcourse) :glare:

[kandrathe]

Like Vor_lord said, ACORN is required by US law to deliver all forms they collected. I'm sure you can see why, MEAT. So, there is hardly any reason for screening, as long as forms don't get dumped somewhere. They are not even required to check the collected forms in any way, but they do. And in all these cases of registration 'fraud', it was the ACORN organisation who alerted officials, as far as I can see.

Yes, but is it the tip of the iceberg?

In fact, if you didn't know what to vote 3 months ago, it's propably better not to vote at all.

Not really. There is time to get familiar with candidates and vote your conscience.

Btw, I always find it hard to believe that obvious dirty tricks like this ACORN affaire can actually play a significant role in your elections (other then contempt ensuring defeat for the tricksters, ofcourse) :glare:

It can when some State elections are as close as a few thousand votes. Check out the way electoral votes are cast. A little bit of fraud in a few States can have a huge impact on electoral votes.

[Nastie_Bowie]

I heard about this ACORN thing over a month ago, and it's just part of the RNC strategy to pander to the ignorant masses of America.

I'm sorry, but McCain is a racist prick and Palin is a dirty little... secessionist. The fact that these two are getting away with blatantly pandering to racists and ignorant ass holes alike is completely wrong and they should be held accountable. Calling Obama a terrorist? Wtf? That is so messed up it sickens me.

McCain will destroy middle America, leaving only the Rich and the Poor. He has no plans he can outline, where Obama speaks facts, McCain panders to the KKK.

George Bush has doubled our deficit since he has been in office, what makes you think McCain will be any different? It's time for us (true, non-racist) American's to revamp our political system before we fall even further into the Abyss. I was Pro-McCain right up until I realized he was a racist money whore from the mid-west.

Color shouldn't even be an ISSUE in this race, shouldn't even be an AFTER THOUGHT, yet it is.

The true terrorism lies with ignorant greedy racist Americans who are destroying our beloved country. And for the record I am against Obama's far left agenda just as much as I am against McCain's far right agenda. However there needs to be some sense of Centrism and the only candidate that has shown that so far is Obama. In the last debate I believe the democratic candidate shined and he has swung my vote.

This would be funny, except for the fact that people thinking like this have the right to vote in this country.

Who brought up color? I think it is you that is the racist, sir. You brought up the wild KKK accusations.

:(

[kandrathe]

You still seem to be advocating not even bothering to try.

Not really. For example, I looked at my generic Target branded coffee beans today and noticed they are Arabica beans, but it does not say what the country of origin might be. Looking that up on the internet I find that they are grown in Ethiopia and Brazil as well as some other places. So >shrug< I don't know if children picked them or not, but until I know differently I won't get too worked up about it.

I am bewildered by your continued disparagement of what you call 'institutionalized altruism'. This topic, as Jester suggested, does deserve its own thread. At the end, we are likely to still disagree, but I may understand your viewpoint better.

Some brief thoughts on the subject.

To my mind the decision to be altruistic (selflessly give) is a personal one, rather than one made on my behalf by my government. The US government does this now by taking our money(in taxes) and gives it away to people(inside and outside the US) whether we want to or not, and on projects that we may or may not support (like nation building in the Balkans or Iraq). This is not money used to run the government, but rather charity done on the backs of tax payers. People should have the freedom to donate their money to beneficent causes as they see fit, rather than have their governments choose pet projects (i.e. Pork). Personally, I believe that taking property from people with no form of just compensation is unconstitutional (see the 5th amendment, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.") Property as originally defined during the framing of the Constitution is not narrowly defined as land, but broadly as all the wealth of an individual. So if people are taxed for things which benefit all (e.g. national and international trade, interstate roads, defense of the nation, border security, economic security) then it can be considered fair. But, when some people derive the benefit at the expense of others, this type of use of public money is against the intention of the framers of the Constitution. Ultimately, excessive taxation is antithetical to freedom, which is why this nation was originally founded as it was. We lost sight of that idea around 1929 in a state of emergency, and FDR's New Deal, and have slowly eroded away to the sorry state we are in today. Once the power to levy taxes was used as an emergency measure to lift people from poverty, the proverbial camel's nose was in the tent, and now we sleep with a herd and the fleas. Similarly, once the federal government was given the power to raise a standing army (against the plans of the framers), it has never been stood down, and the US has found a use for its military ever since.

I'm of the same mind on this as congressman Davy Crockett who according to anecdote...

One day in the House, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The speaker was just about to put the question when Rep. David Crockett arose: "Mr. Speaker — I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living.

"I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it. We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

If 100 percent taxation is slavery, then 40 percent to 60 percent taxation is partial slavery. I just think in the past 100 years, the US government has slowly boiled the frog. We just don't notice anymore that we are slaves to a tyrant government that most of the time acts in its own, rather than the people's interest. This financial crisis is a perfect example of government not working to protect the people, but rather to forward either personal ideologies (using the government to give poor people loans), or lining ones pockets. Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of poor people owning homes. I just don't think government should be as involved as they are in the process, but rather focus on insuring that people are not being discriminated against (red lined).

So, it goes back to my old axiom... To mess things up is human, but to really mess things up takes a congress (or a parliament if you live further north).

[Jester]

Yes, but is it the tip of the iceberg?Not really. There is time to get familiar with candidates and vote your conscience.It can when some State elections are as close as a few thousand votes. Check out the way electoral votes are cast. A little bit of fraud in a few States can have a huge impact on electoral votes.

Nobody has ever shown a single one of these to have led to anyone actually voting fraudulently. Even if this was the "tip of the iceberg", and it was hundreds of times more widespread than the cases that have been caught, it still wouldn't add up to a molehill in a single district, let alone the electoral college.

Actually getting a fraudulent vote to the ballot box through false registrations is vastly harder than simply submitting the registrations in the first place, and, as best I am aware, there is no case whatsoever that ACORN is attempting such a thing.

So, for your concern to be relevant, not only would you have to suppose its scope was vastly greater than it has been shown to be, but you would also have to assume malfeasance where none has been proven, and the evidence is nonexistent.

-Jester

[Jester]

If 100 percent taxation is slavery, then 40 percent to 60 percent taxation is partial slavery.

You can force your slaves to work, and you can buy and sell them. In a case of 100% taxation, people will become criminals, not slaves.

-Jester

[Zenda]

In reply to post 129:

Kandrathe "Yes, but is it the tip of the iceberg?"

I can only agree with Jester, regarding this remark. There is nothing to warrant insinuations, false or not.

Kandrathe "Not really. There is time to get familiar with candidates and vote your conscience."

Most of what you see now is distraction, and the rest is what you already knew (or maybe not, but in that case you really should consider not voting, because you may not be able to tell the difference at this stage). You should distrust accusations like this one against ACORN, for example, for the mere fact that it appears so close to the elections.

Kandrathe "A little bit of fraud in a few States can have a huge impact on electoral votes."

Sure, but I wasn't talking about election fraud. This whole issue with ACORN is about registrations, and so were previous election related cases. You still need real voters to abuse registrations, as Jester pointed out.

I was talking about the fact that so many people apparantly want to believe such groundless accusations. It can't be that hard to find a better motivation for your political choice, I hope? Do you really want the government that wins a mud slinging contest?


In reply to post 131:

Kandrathe "I'm of the same mind on this as congressman Davy Crockett who..."

Would you also give away a week income for the benefit of a widow you didn't know? And again for the second? Third? How many widows would Davy Crockett have been able to support on his own? Like he said, only if other members of the Congress would do the same, there would be enough money to succeed. Doesn't that make him a socialist, asking the rich to help bear the burden of the poor? Or do you also need to hate corporations for that?

If all people were like the Davy Crockett you describe, we might not need taxes. But since that is obviously not the case, you better accept we can't do without, Kandrathe. Unless you want to start donating a lot, ofcourse.

Kandrathe "So, it goes back to my old axiom... "

I looks to me that your axiom is not to accept responsibility and always blame others.

[kandrathe]

Kandrathe "Yes, but is it the tip of the iceberg?" I can only agree with Jester, regarding this remark. There is nothing to warrant insinuations, false or not.

This is not a new issue this year. Acorn trying to game the system has been a problem for many years. Here is an article from 2006 in the WSJ.

Kandrathe "Not really. There is time to get familiar with candidates and vote your conscience."

Most of what you see now is distraction, and the rest is what you already knew (or maybe not, but in that case you really should consider not voting, because you may not be able to tell the difference at this stage). You should distrust accusations like this one against ACORN, for example, for the mere fact that it appears so close to the elections.

I have a problem with a European telling Americans they are too ignorant to vote in their own election.

Kandrathe "A little bit of fraud in a few States can have a huge impact on electoral votes."

Sure, but I wasn't talking about election fraud. This whole issue with ACORN is about registrations, and so were previous election related cases. You still need real voters to abuse registrations, as Jester pointed out.

Right, but where does the fraud start? If Donald Duck is a registered voter in Ohio, will you have much faith in the election system whether or not he votes? If he does vote, then someone committed a crime.

I was talking about the fact that so many people apparently want to believe such groundless accusations. It can't be that hard to find a better motivation for your political choice, I hope? Do you really want the government that wins a mud slinging contest?

What do you mean "groundless"? It seems there is ample evidence to be suspicious when 1/3 of the 600,000 some new registered voters in Ohio have discrepancies.

Kandrathe "I'm of the same mind on this as congressman Davy Crockett who..."

Would you also give away a week income for the benefit of a widow you didn't know? And again for the second? Third? How many widows would Davy Crockett have been able to support on his own? Like he said, only if other members of the Congress would do the same, there would be enough money to succeed. Doesn't that make him a socialist, asking the rich to help bear the burden of the poor? Or do you also need to hate corporations for that?

Well, you missed the point. The point was that in order to give the money to the widow, you need to take it from someone else. If you feel like giving someone money, then you should dig into your own pocket rather than the fellow next to you. I guess you don't have a problem taking money from people.

You also don't really understand socialism then either. If individuals decide to give money to a worthy cause it is not socialism. Asking the wealthy to help the poor is not the same as taking the money from those defined as "rich" (as defined by income) to give to the poor. The very wealthy have lots of wealth, but only a moderate income. We have a system where Warren Buffet pays a 17.7% effective tax rate while his employees on average pay 32.9% effective tax rate. Mr. Buffet sets his own salary at $100K, which is all he needs and yet on paper he is supposedly the wealthiest person on the planet. When he retires he will probably pay much less. He also intends to give away the bulk of his money to charities.

And, yes, I do give away money beyond my taxes for the causes that I want to support. I wish I could do more, but I do what I can do.

If all people were like the Davy Crockett you describe, we might not need taxes. But since that is obviously not the case, you better accept we can't do without, Kandrathe. Unless you want to start donating a lot, of course.

Maybe all people are not like Rep. Crockett, but that doesn't mean the government needs to force everyone to be beneficent (especially when the money goes to stroke important campaign contributors). How many people in the US really wanted to give their tax money to support the Shedd Aquarium in Chicago?

Kandrathe "So, it goes back to my old axiom... " I looks to me that your axiom is not to accept responsibility and always blame others.

Yeah, like the latest financial crisis was all my fault.

[kandrathe]

Edit: it's also notable that this whole ACORN issue was started from investigations by the RNC. not an unbiased organization.

Acorn is also a partisan group, so to be fair they are an extension of the AFL-CIO, and thereby also a Democrat Party tool. There was a bill introduced into Congress in 2006 (that passed the House) to divert profits from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into Acorn.

[kandrathe]

Nobody has ever shown a single one of these to have led to anyone actually voting fraudulently. Even if this was the "tip of the iceberg", and it was hundreds of times more widespread than the cases that have been caught, it still wouldn't add up to a molehill in a single district, let alone the electoral college.

Actually getting a fraudulent vote to the ballot box through false registrations is vastly harder than simply submitting the registrations in the first place, and, as best I am aware, there is no case whatsoever that ACORN is attempting such a thing.

So, for your concern to be relevant, not only would you have to suppose its scope was vastly greater than it has been shown to be, but you would also have to assume malfeasance where none has been proven, and the evidence is nonexistent.

-Jester

I actually don't think Acorn is to blame, but rather some people within Acorn. Often there are bad apples in the barrel, especially when you pay $8 per hour for registering X names/hour.

[Chesspiece_face]

Acorn is also a partisan group, so to be fair they are an extension of the AFL-CIO, and thereby also a Democrat Party tool. There was a bill introduced into Congress in 2006 (that passed the House) to divert profits from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into Acorn.

True, ACORN does lean democratic in their intent. My point was more related to the media hysteria and how these issues are pushed as political spin completely apart from their validity. Personally i think that the issue of illegally removing voters from the rolls is a much more valid issue related to voter rights compared to the issue with ACORN. I also don't find it a complete coincident that the ACORN problems weren't pushed as a major issue until the story of the illegal voter removals hit.

[Zenda]

Your first link points to a anti-ACORN piece without references in some OpinionJournal owned by Dow-Jones, and the article from your second link doesn't even mention ACORN, Kandrathe. I'm sure you can do better then that :huh:

I have a problem with a European telling Americans they are too ignorant to vote in their own election.

But you don't have a problem with phony accusations being used to affect the choice of those same Americans?

Well, you missed the point. The point was that in order to give the money to the widow, you need to take it from someone else. If you feel like giving someone money, then you should dig into your own pocket rather than the fellow next to you.

Ah, now I see. Davy Crockett didn't intend to support the widow at all, but he used the donation 'solution' as argument againt the tax bill, right? I understand now what you meant with being of a same mind, yes. For the widow's sake, I hope he didn't succeed.

Btw, who is Warren Buffet, and what have aquaria in Chicago to do with all this?

[eppie]

I have a problem with a European telling Americans they are too ignorant to vote in their own election.

Well get used to it. A people that reelected George Bush, doesn't really have a lot of credit in that sense.