ACORN employees enable child prostitution & tax fraud

[DukkhaWaynhim]

Just out of curiosity, what was it that ACORN did to piss Cons off so badly?

Is it just that they register voters, or that they keep getting found not guilty in all these voter fraud investigations, or what? I honestly never paid all that much attention to them during the election, and now they're some kind of Conservative code word for creeping evil liberalism or something.

It's clear from the thread title - ACORN enables child prostitution and tax fraud.
Try not to be incensed at ACORN based on reading that -- assuming that you actually find child prostitution and tax fraud to be distasteful activities.

dw

[Avatar]

Didn't watch the video. Do they (the "actors") actually specify that the "prostitute" is underage?

--A

[Cail]

Didn't watch the video. Do they (the "actors") actually specify that the "prostitute" is underage?

They specify that there will be 13 underage illegal aliens from El Salvador living in the house and turning tricks.

[Avatar]

Now that is taking community service a little far. Very interesting. Of course the group disavows all knowledge, but I wonder what their unofficial policy is? (Not toward child prostitution, but about how helpful they should try to be...like...in any circumstances...)

--A

[Zarathustra]

Well, the problem isn't just two employees at one ACORN branch. Another video has surfaced of a DC branch doing the same thing. Starting to see a pattern?
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,549241,00.html

Didn't watch the video. Do they (the "actors") actually specify that the "prostitute" is underage?

They specify that there will be 13 underage illegal aliens from El Salvador living in the house and turning tricks.

Yeah, and then said that since they don't have social security numbers, there won't be a paper trail, so no problem. And since they are children, they can be claimed as dependents. This is so outrageous at so many levels.

If they discuss ACORN's origins and goals, the fact the group is liberal would be self-evident. Is there really a need to describe a gun-rights group as conservative?

So voter registration, predatory lending, minimum wage and funding for public schools, providing free tax-return preparation for low-income people and screening for state and federal benefits are automatically liberal issues? I don't think that's axiomatic.

This is a documented problem with most of the media, the fact that they will label people like Rush Limbaugh as conservatives, but they don't do the same for Whoopi Goldberg or Rosie O'Donnell, who are known for their liberal views and speak about them openly and loudly. Check out Bernard Goldberg's book, BIAS.

[Avatar]

...and then said that since they don't have social security numbers, there won't be a paper trail, so no problem. And since they are children, they can be claimed as dependents. This is so outrageous at so many levels.

*disbelief* That is outrageous.

Interesting...I wonder what underlies this?

--A

[Seven Words]

Well, the problem isn't just two employees at one ACORN branch. Another video has surfaced of a DC branch doing the same thing. Starting to see a pattern?
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,549241,00.html

Didn't watch the video. Do they (the "actors") actually specify that the "prostitute" is underage?

They specify that there will be 13 underage illegal aliens from El Salvador living in the house and turning tricks.

Yeah, and then said that since they don't have social security numbers, there won't be a paper trail, so no problem. And since they are children, they can be claimed as dependents. This is so outrageous at so many levels.

If they discuss ACORN's origins and goals, the fact the group is liberal would be self-evident. Is there really a need to describe a gun-rights group as conservative?

So voter registration, predatory lending, minimum wage and funding for public schools, providing free tax-return preparation for low-income people and screening for state and federal benefits are automatically liberal issues? I don't think that's axiomatic.

This is a documented problem with most of the media, the fact that they will label people like Rush Limbaugh as conservatives, but they don't do the same for Whoopi Goldberg or Rosie O'Donnell, who are known for their liberal views and speak about them openly and loudly. Check out Bernard Goldberg's book, BIAS.

One's position on those issues generally indicates whether a person is liberal. Most of these issues are (in my admittedly non-definitive experience) generally only raised by liberals. Axiomatic, no. Rule of thumb, yes. *shrug* can't speak for the media, but the fact that Whoopi and Rosie are not primarily political figures, whereas Rush is, seems a viable, rational reason they don't usually get "tagged". But anyone who listens to them when they DO speak about political/social issues can tell they are liberal.

[Zarathustra]

Okay, maybe those weren't the best examples. How about Michael Moore? Does he qualify as a political figure? Or at least a political filmmaker? What about Jannene Garofolo? She did exactly what Rush Limbaugh does (i.e. a political radio talk show), and she has certainly spent some time lately on cable news channels voicing her very liberal opinions. But you'll never see the caption, "liberal commentator" next to her name when she appears, even though that's what she does.

Maybe you'll start to notice it more now that I've pointed it out. Just for fun, while you watch the news, see if they *ever* label anyone as "liberal" when they run a story about them, or have them in the studio for some punditry. And then see how often the word "conservative" is used. Conservatives have to be pointed out by the liberal media because they are considered outside of the mainstream (by those reporting on them, at least).

[[Syl]]

Actually, if you read my post, I explicitly didn't accuse you of supporting child prostitution

And if you read my post, you'll see I used the word 'insinuate,' that is to say, implicitly.

...rather I said that by defending the organization (which you did)

I did? As I said, I don't care about ACORN. I have no interest in defending it, but simply aim to rebut the statements made concerning it. There is a difference.

...attacking another (which you did), and not saying anything at all about what actually happened (which you didn't)

I attacked other organizations inasmuch that every organization is likely to have unsavory members. When you get near the million mark, it's a statistical certainty. People are fallible. This does not address, as I said in the very first post, anything about the virtues of the organization in question.

...you give the far-right whack jobs all sorts of ammunition to make that accusation.

A lot of "far-right whack jobs" perusing KW these days? If you're looking for someone to blame those guys on, I'd cast your eye a little closer to your side of the fence, or at least someone who pays attention to those clowns.

Then, when that comment's made, you attack another organization (the Catholic Church, which I've heavily criticized for its handling of the sex scandals)

Before you tell another organization to remove the splinter from its eye... Anyway, the point is that just because there are pedo priests, you don't have to disavow the whole church. Same for people who support ACORN. And not that I'm one of them, but at least they fired the miscreants as opposed to shuffling them off to another district.

...and still refuse to say anything the least bit negative about what happened.

What does that matter? Is there some kind of law or even rule of etiquette that I have to be all hopping mad just because this bothers you? Should I bump the Bush, Crooks thread to compare our level of outrage? The fact that I compared these guys to dirty cops, pervs of the cloth, and a Republican (I kid, but I'm sure you get what I mean) really isn't clue enough for you?

I am pointing out how a comment like yours feeds into the ridiculously partisan finger-pointing that's become the depressing norm in political discussions.

In this forum, the only such comes from...? Sorry, but I had to cancel my national speaking tour on the subject due to scheduling restraints.

[Seven Words]

Okay, maybe those weren't the best examples. How about Michael Moore? Does he qualify as a political figure? Or at least a political filmmaker? What about Jannene Garofolo? She did exactly what Rush Limbaugh does (i.e. a political radio talk show), and she has certainly spent some time lately on cable news channels voicing her very liberal opinions. But you'll never see the caption, "liberal commentator" next to her name when she appears, even though that's what she does.

Maybe you'll start to notice it more now that I've pointed it out. Just for fun, while you watch the news, see if they *ever* label anyone as "liberal" when they run a story about them, or have them in the studio for some punditry. And then see how often the word "conservative" is used. Conservatives have to be pointed out by the liberal media because they are considered outside of the mainstream (by those reporting on them, at least).

I've seen Michael Moore referred to as a liberal filmmaker by mainstream media. Not always, but often. I have, on rare occasions, seen the tag "liberal" applied in MSM. Just as FOX very rarely bothers to apply "conservative" to "their people". In psychology,it's called the "Self-as-norm" phenomenon.

[Cail]

Ummmm....OK?

Back to the topic at hand, as of 2:15PM today, there's still nothing about this on MSNBC.

[Tjol]

Just out of curiosity, what was it that ACORN did to piss Cons off so badly?

VOTE EARLY AND VOTE OFTEN.

Is it just that they register voters, or that they keep getting found not guilty in all these voter fraud investigations, or what? I honestly never paid all that much attention to them during the election, and now they're some kind of Conservative code word for creeping evil liberalism or something.

Yes it's the voter fraud that conservatives don't like, and the liberals don't mind as long as it's working for them.

[[Syl]]

It's not on WSJ, either. Must be a conspiracy.

[Tjol]

It's not on WSJ, either. Must be a conspiracy.

WSJ isn't straight conservative. For example, they're rabidly pro-illegal immigration. They're pro-business, not necessarily pro-conservative.

[Madadeva]

Now you can make as many meta references as you like...

"Meta references"!! wow. That's an expresssion you don't see every day!

[Cail]

It's not on WSJ, either. Must be a conspiracy.

Other than this one from yesterday.

What sort of conspiracy?

Edit- And it would appear that MSNBC had one as of yesterday evening as well. Wasn't on their front page this morning like CNN's.

[Zarathustra]

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,549903,00.html

ACORN is at it again. A third tape has surfaced. Yep, starting to look like a systemic problem.

[Seven Words]

Yes, it is starting to look systemic. ACORN has (in my opinion) done a lot of good with voter registration, etc. That IN NO WAY excuses or mitigates these loathsome actions....simply indicates that it needs an overhaul rather than being eliminated. They would do better if they stuck with objective work, and leave campaigning to the politicians. Not to mention, NOT attempting to assist aliens in persisting in illegal residency, but get them legalized or deported, in accordance with the law.

[Avatar]

Not sure how I feel about people trying to get them caught in compromising positions...how long after these "fakes" got their advice did the story break in each case?

--A

[Tjol]

Not sure how I feel about people trying to get them caught in compromising positions...how long after these "fakes" got their advice did the story break in each case?

--A

Should someone not try to catch a government entity (which Obama has made it by including them in the administration of the coming census) in it's worst light?