Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

OK, here's what I don't understand. Since congress voted to take away federal funding to ACORN

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
madmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 09:23 AM
Original message
OK, here's what I don't understand. Since congress voted to take away federal funding to ACORN
because of some bad info from a couple employees, WHY are they still giving federal money to the likes of blackwater and haliburton when we know what they did was by far much worse than giving out bad advice. Haliburton and blackwater employees were/are on trial for murdering people,they get new contracts. ACORN gives erroneous advice, they lose everything. How very fitting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 09:24 AM
Response to Original message
1. GOOD question. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EmeraldCityGrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 09:26 AM
Response to Original message
2. Why doesn't to big to fail apply to ACORN?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. because they are not "big enough to fail" ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
get the red out Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 09:27 AM
Response to Original message
3. Because Republicans being crooks is totally acceptable?
Afterall, Blackwater is such a "religious" company.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
4. death and destruction is a good
helping the poor is bad.

we still are a primitive nation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hamlette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 09:29 AM
Response to Original message
5. Because dems are rational and republicans are not. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jonnyblitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 09:31 AM
Response to Original message
7. It seems like the republicans are still running things. nt
Edited on Thu Sep-17-09 09:32 AM by jonnyblitz
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
samsingh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
8. good point
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 01:34 PM
Response to Original message
9. lol. what rubbish
they are defunding because of... wait for it "bad info from a couple of employees"

first of all, it was more than a couple.

second of all, giving "info" to people about how to evade taxes on child sex trafficking, how to conceal the true nature of your business, and how to facilitate its success, in exploiting underage girls is not giving "bad info"

puhleez.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. But killing innocent people is ok and we can fund that till hell freezes over right?....
Look I'm not saying these people were right in what they did, but the child sex trafficking was fake and nobody got hurt. The killings are/were real and lots of people did and still are getting hurt. So if one gets defunded for giving illegal advice to someone, who it turns out was fake, don't you think the ones who are for real (they are really raping and murdering people) should be defunded also? The double standard is disgusting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. nice strawman.
i never said killing innocents is "ok" (depends on the circs, and in the case of blackwater, etc clearly they have done bad things) but that's not the point. the point is in order to set up your argument, you described it as "giving bad info"

which is complete horseshit.

so, the rest of your argument FAILS if your premise is unsound

analytical reasoning 101

if you can't be honest enbough to accurately describe what the (more than 2) ACORN employees did (and it wasn't merely providing "bad info") then you lose credibiity and the argument fails

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. So who was it that got hurt here. THERE WERE NO GIRLS! THEY WERE FAKE! so
what did the ACORN people do beside give bad info, on how to skirt tax laws. They were wrong but what they did does not merit the whole of the corp being defunded. They may have not known there were no girls but the congress that defunded them knows it was all a set-up and it is nothing more than tax fraud, which a lot of people do every day, and brag about it.
I did not say 2, I may have said a couple but that is a loose interpretation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. again
it's dishonest o say it;'s merely bad info

i suggest again that you need to understand the concept of MENS REA.

the issue isn't whether they did harm. in ANY sting, no harm is done, because the situation is fake. but the stingee doesn't know that. the issue is INTENT

when i bought guns undercover,a no harm was done. the guns were sold to me, a law enforcement officer. but the seller didn't know that. they thought they were selling to a coke dealer.

but they were still guilty of weapons trafficking.

i wasn;t a coke dealer.

it was not MERELY tax fraud. it was an ATTEMPT (see: mens rea) to help a child sex trafficker evade taxes (and the law) and to facilitate the business in continuing their trade.

that's the honest assessment. you can make an argument that such behavior does not warrant defunding (it was isolated, bla bla) and that would be an honest argument. if you cannot accurately describe what they actually did, you fail

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
11. Perhaps the government is having trouble finding other companies who can do what these ones do
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mariawr Donating Member (171 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. That's not the point. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #13
19. But it may be the reality of the situation
Do you have a better explanation for why neither the Democratic Congress nor President Obama has moved to cut off funding?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grahamhgreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:22 PM
Response to Original message
16. It's quite the double standard. ONLY Acorn is held accountable for what some of thei rindividuals f
While all other organizations get to use the few bad apples defense. Including congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:24 PM
Response to Original message
17. The only black in Blackwater is the name
Yes, that's hyperbole.

ACORN's employees' bad advice isn't the issue. ACORN is a surrogate for Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:30 PM
Response to Original message
18. I heard on NPR today that federal funding only makes up 2% of ACORN
funding.

That doesn't change the hypocrisy your question puts a spotlight on- , but if it's true, then the federal funding isn't all that critical to them.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Sep 17th 2014, 08:35 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC