Ah, she's just a left wing Glenn Beck, what with all those conspiracy theories and stuff. [/right winger's fake independent centrist gesture]
It's not that the Democrats don't have any spine. It is that the contractors are savy enough to diversify and tap both parties when it comes to buying members of Congress.
Indeed, though she appears to have committed the unforgiveable act of using facts to support her argument.
Yet, Republicans got ensnared in the Jack Abramoff scandal. You'd think a widespread corruption case like that would involve both parties. I'm not saying Democrats deserve any sort of gold star for ethics, but claims of equivalence without evidence bug me to no ends.
My point is not about claiming equivalence. It is about acknowledging the reasons why the contracts in question will continue regardless of which party has a majority. And my contention is that it has nothing to do with being spineless.
at the same time, Dems and Reeps at times do not have the slightest effin' idea of what they are talking about, and haven't the slightest sense of proportionality.... Compare the outrage over the 35 million over the last 10 or so years (IIRC) ACORN got from the Federal government to the billions each of these contractors get.... To me, it's either a) be truly outraged or b) keep your fake outrage where the sun don't shine.... but our politicians, such prostitutes that they often are want the best of both worlds, and the media fails monumentally calling them out on their BS.....
http://biggovernment.com/2009/10/21/acorn-video-prostitution-scandal-in-philadelphia-pa-part-i/ and the story goes on... [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af9DDayHwbg"]YouTube - ACORN Philadelphia Prostitution Investigation Part I[/ame]
Moore's a self-promoting clown, but unlike these self-promoting clowns, he has the courage to take on institutions that exercise real, actual power.
I haven't read this thread, so I don't know if it's only 'bout the pimpin', or if it's a generic ACORN thread, but: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_...onnett_davis_accused_of_scamming_verizon.html A lot to interesting things in this story. ACORN has its own NYC high school. http://schools.nyc.gov/SchoolPortals/13/K499/default.htm http://schools.nyc.gov/SchoolPortals/13/K499/AboutUs/Overview/Our+Mission.htm An ironic image. Has someone bought the Brooklyn Bridge? This ACORN worker helped force the principal out. She scammed Verizon by registering the ED (Ed. Dept.) in the Small Business Rewards program, back in 2004, when she was not a BoE employee. She was hired as a "parent coordinator" at the school in '08, at a $37K annual salary. I would think that, in most school systems, this function is handled by a volunteer, not a paid employee. http://schools.nyc.gov/SchoolPortals/13/K499/Parents/ParentSupport/default.htm So far, no criminal charges. In its defense, ACORN says it knows nothing & encourages prosecution.
A federal district court has preliminarily enjoined Congress's defunding of ACORN. http://volokh.com/2009/12/11/distri...s-acorn-defunding-law-as-a-bill-of-attainder/ Cue know-nothing cries of judicial activism in 3-2-1......
http://www.salon.com/news/acorn/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2009/12/12/acorn Glenn Greenwald wrote about this on Friday. Here's his update that he added to said article either yesterday or this morning. UPDATE: As always happens whenever there is a judicial decision that undermines the Right's political interests, there are going to be hordes of right-wing polemicists marching forth to denounce this ruling as "judicial activism." They're already starting. These are people won't bother to read a single word or case about "bills of attainder," but overnight, they're self-proclaimed legal scholars on this Constitutional prohibition and are in a position to criticize the Judge's ruling as legally erroneous. Of course, the only thing they really know is that they hate ACORN and therefore dislike the outcome of this case. In other words, they're denouncing the decision for reasons having nothing to do with law and everything to do with their own political beliefs and outcome preferences -- i.e., they're advocating, as usual, for the consummate act of outcome-based "judicial activism" which they endlessly claim to oppose.
... and I haven't read any of your links, (Hey! That's the thing about being a trend-setter like you Jake, people follow), but I think the thing that's wrong with this 'anti-Acorn' hysteria, (not that I'm saying that's what you're guilty of), is that it ignores the plain truth that ANY organisation can employ people who might do things that are illegal, immoral or just plain stupid. Are we really going to punish organisations for the sins of their employees? For example, should we punish Ford Motor Company if some of their employees are wife-beaters, drunks or petty criminals? If the organisation itself is specifically set up to carry out something that's illegal or immoral then, fair enough, but to say, (as some of the people criticising Acorn seem to be saying), that the entire organisation is worthless and needs wiping out smacks, to me, of people using the law to achieve what they can't achieve politically, specifically, stopping them registering poor, often black voters likely to vote democrat. The thing is that a community-based organisation DOES place people who otherwise wouldn't be in a position to have any money, power or influence in situations where they HAVE got them, even if it's only on behalf of others. Thus, it's almost inevitable that SOME of them will be tempted to do something wrong but that doesn't mean it's the organisation that's at fault. Personally I think it's a similar situation to corruption in local politics... the point being that nobody says we should scrap all local governance, do they! What's the difference!
Into which bucket does the republican party fall? Do we let them off the hook for felonies committed by their members/employees?
Maybe they've got a foot in both camps But, tbh, that's the point, isn't it. I mean, I mentioned local government but what about the big fellas too. Maybe we should completely abandon democracy because there are some corrupt politicians. It's total bullshit.
Kinky... well, not quite as kinky as bathroom stall blowjobs, dildos in wetsuits, or beating women until they yell "little green footballs!", but, well, anything about feet is at least mildly kinky...
I'll tell you something that occurred to me the other day whilst watching a re-run of 'The Wire'. It was the one where the police/FBI/whoever were investigating the trades union and it relates to the discussion we're having here. In the USA it seems like there's one rule for rich people and those in business and another for ordinary working people. This is shown by the response of the criminal justice system to trades unions where criminal activity occurs where the response seems to be to ATTACK the organisation itself instead of identifying and punishing the person doing wrong. However, with corporations, (who have shareholders instead of members), nobody would suggest closing down a company if it has people running it who commit criminal acts such as the corporations mentioned in this thread. It seems to me that the response to ACORN is simply continuing a long tradition of blaming the victims of crime, (when they're trades union members or other poor people), and their organisations, instead of helping them. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.
I'm not sure I'm correct, but here's my view. I think the main difference between a corporation that deals in the manufacture of a product, which is governed by specific safety regulations, and a service organization, where the "product" is the service, itself, is that when the service is corrupt -- that is, the way the service is rendered violates some standard of ethics -- the only way to prosecute that violation is to go after the organization as a whole, because it is the organization's responsibility to police its service renderers. We don't prosecute the assembly line workers if Ford Motors makes a car with a gas tank that blows up when there is a rear end collision. We would prosecute assembly line workers if they were installing an otherwise safe gas tank so that it would blow up when there was a rear end collision, and I think we would also prosecute the manufacturer for not conducting adequate safety checks. Am I right in this thinking?