Political, eh? Can you elaborate? I thought the party that benefits from ACORN's political activities has a clear majority in congress. Why would they cut them off for political reasons?
For those actually interested in past internal “issues” at ACORN the Washington Post has a good piece in today’s edition: For ACORN, Video Is Only Latest Crisis (requires registration)
Actually, I'm pretty sure that the Democrats in congress benefit quite a bit more from the same corporate donors through whom the Republicans benefit. I don't think most of them get that much from ACORN. If I'm wrong, I'd like to see some numbers.
Actually, I got to it with no trouble. Now, this is much better stuff. Back taxes and bills: that looks more like serious incompetence rather than a major threat to the republic. But at least they say they're dealing with the embezzlement and the back taxes. If not... then they're hosed. This on the other hand... Is serious. If it's true, they need to be fined heavily. Of course, so do a lot of Churches that get out the vote for Republicans (well, not fined, but some of them need to have their tax-exempt status investigated). Along these lines.... . That's a problem and a serious mis-use of taxpayer money. But it's not different from what Focus on the Family does. If that organization is tax exempt as a "religious" organization, then it too needs to be investigated (if it's not tax exempt, then fair play to them).
So 'politics' is just something that happens in government, is it? There's no 'politics' OUTSIDE of government then? Are you being deliberately dense or just obtuse? I meant politics in the wider sense, obviously!
So then, is it the voters who in your view are a load of six year olds bloody naive and simplistic? Or is it the campaign contributors?
Ok, maybe I was being a bit flippant, but the point is straightforward. You suggested that Congress should not pull the plug on their funding, but Congress chose to pull the plug on their funding, so as you obviously disagree with Congress I suggested that you might want to write to your representatives. Or, maybe you can run for office yourself, and then if you win you can vote to restore the funding. That would probably be better, if you can pull it off. Good luck!
It's the morons on these boards that think things happen for simplistic reasons. I can't think of an example at the moment but as soon as one occurs to me you'll be the first to know Alternatively you can just look in the mirror.
Then perhaps instead of resorting to hints and name calling you can elaborate on why, in your view, in this particular case the simple reasons are not the real reasons?
This being the Politics & Current Events thread, find an article produced by the WSJ about the negligence of KBR written in the past 2 months. I don't know what current meant 30 years ago, but today, I'd say that it means within the past couple months. Like I said, after the fact...
This is a strage position for a big soccer moderator. Isn't the point of this forum to air opinions about matters of public interest? Or are you going to respond to every matter related to government from now on with "run for congress". And by the way, personally I am in a very good position to run for office, but I choose not to because I don't see it as the pinnacle of achievement or the only way to effect public policy.
Ok. Then maybe you can become a lobbyist. I'm not sure it's the pinnacle of achievement but you certainly would affect public policy.
oh that's right, you're all about winning! so if you "win" this argument, would you consider it a victory worthy of a bumper sticker? or will you reserve that for winning the argument championship?
Your condescension is misplaced, not appreciated and frankly, a big strategic mistake when it comes from a lightweight like you. Unlike you I suspect, my career decisions have been based in part on how I can -- in my view of the world -- best effect society. So your question is something I've thought alot about my entire adult life. Let's take this problem specifically. How do you stop such knee jerk reactions by our elected officials, and stop them from thinking so short term politically and get them thinking about what's best for their constituents and the world? I think the best way to do it is not lobbying, but to change the minds of their constituents. To get ordinary people thinking differently about the world they live in. I think that's best done outside of government. As a person who has built a business playing both sides (inside and out), I think I know what I'm talking about.
Just want to make sure that you are aware that you may bring up something that happened a hundred million years ago if you want. We prefer that you show it's relevance to current events, though.
I am not content with anything less than world championships. I want to skip winning individual arguments all together, and go right to winning an argument world championship.
jesus christ people, do you really go around making your personal decisions based on how it would best effect society??? what a sad life you live. personally I make my decisions based on how best I can effect my own life and the lives of those closest to me. but I'm just normal I guess.
ACORN should lose congressional funding. They're a poorly run organization that had a million bucks embezzled, covered it up, hasn't paid taxes, and did some stupid things, and has questionable ties to politicians. KBR should lose congressional funding. They're a poorly run organization that has condoned and hidden up rapes, murders, electrocucions, covered it up, doesn't pay taxes, and has close ties to politicians. Thank you.