The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by geo321.

On the plus side, Mr. Acorns wasn't run over.

>> ^dgandhi:

>> ^NordlichReiter:
Also Planned Parenthood representatives should not be telling people to lie on their forms.

Think about that for a second, Some guy comes in, says he is pimping out young girls, and that he may need to get them abortions. You can:
A) tell him that you can't help and have him go to some back ally butcher, and totally off your radar.
B) tell him to bring the girls in, where they will at least get competent medical care, and might get some legal help.
This is exactly what happened with ACORN, they played to the supposed pimp, TO GATHER INFORMATION, and then they reported it to the AG, that's what they SHOULD do.
PP needs to grow a pair of ovaries and say loudly and publicly that stringing along criminals to assist in the collection of information about the abuse and sexual exploitation of miners is, and should be, part of their job, and deserves federal funding.


That's all fine so long as they do not break the law in the process. Justice is blind and blind for a reason.

>> ^NordlichReiter:

Also Planned Parenthood representatives should not be telling people to lie on their forms.


Think about that for a second, Some guy comes in, says he is pimping out young girls, and that he may need to get them abortions. You can:

A) tell him that you can't help and have him go to some back ally butcher, and totally off your radar.
B) tell him to bring the girls in, where they will at least get competent medical care, and might get some legal help.

This is exactly what happened with ACORN, they played to the supposed pimp, TO GATHER INFORMATION, and then they reported it to the AG, that's what they SHOULD do.

PP needs to grow a pair of ovaries and say loudly and publicly that stringing along criminals to assist in the collection of information about the abuse and sexual exploitation of miners is, and should be, part of their job, and deserves federal funding.

There are many Scapegoats:
1) The poor ("lazy jobless leaches on the system who shouldn't have the right to vote")
2) Mexicans ("criminal leaches on the system who take American jobs")
3) Gays ("Sinners hell bent on destroying the sanctity of marriage with an agenda for 'special' rights")
4) Muslims ("Terrorists who hate us for our freedom")
5) African Americans ("ACORN, Jeramiah Wright, Sherrod, Obama the Kenyan,the continuation of the Southern Strategy")
6) "Socialists" ("Godless statist traitors")

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
What I'm talking about in general is looking at people's behaviors to see if they have shown they deserve the right to vote, as opposed to just assuming any Tom, Dick, & Harry can vote no matter how stupid they are or how badly they behave.

Others have already pointed out that this creates a very slippery slope. Me, I just want to revisit one of the first things you said in this thread:

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Isn't a common trope from neolibs and Videosifters a lament that the American public is "too stupid" to vote? Wouldn't restricting sufferage rights to property owners increase the average intellectual level of the voter? Isn't that a good thing?

It's a common refrain from either side of the political divide to blame a loss on voters being ignorant. What's different is that the left understands that we shouldn't be taking away people's civil rights because people use them in ways we disapprove of, instead we think we need to do a better job of getting the facts and our point of view out to people.

The right, on the other hand, can never quite believe it when they lose elections. It's always, always "voter fraud" if liberals win. You even have kept alive the idea that Obama himself is somehow illegitimately in the White House because he's black they think there's been a massive conspiracy to hide that he was born in Africa.

The effect of every right wing anti-fraud proposal I've ever seen ends up shrinking the overall share of people voting. Literacy tests were the original (don't want those ex-slaves voting!), nowadays it's slandering organizations that try to register the poor and minorities (e.g. ACORN), driver's license requirements to scare away immigrants, and making sure that it stays as inconvenient as possible to vote (you must register months in advance, you must come to a set polling place between 7am and 7pm on a weekday, etc.).

Liberal electoral reforms are always aimed at making it easier for people to vote, and growing the percentage of the populace who vote. For example, allowing people to register to vote on election day, being able to vote as much as 2 months early, make election day a mandatory day off nationwide, etc.

We're also concerned about election fraud, or fraud committed by the people counting the votes. Mostly these days that's making sure there are paper trails for electronic voting machines, but it's also making sure the people working the polling places are treating everyone the same.

Curiously, the right always finds a reason to oppose every one of the above.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^ant:
>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^ant:
No ants.

We've got enough ants inhabiting the underground, thank you very much.

Um, you didn't look hard. Some live in trees, in your homes, in your acorns, etc.

We've even got ants inhabiting our internets.


We are ANTZ. We will assimilate you. Resistance is futile.

>> ^ant:

>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^ant:
No ants.

We've got enough ants inhabiting the underground, thank you very much.

Um, you didn't look hard. Some live in trees, in your homes, in your acorns, etc.


We've even got ants inhabiting our internets.

>> ^rottenseed:

>> ^ant:
No ants.

We've got enough ants inhabiting the underground, thank you very much.


Um, you didn't look hard. Some live in trees, in your homes, in your acorns, etc.

But when's the part where Obama takes over the banks and gives all their money to ACORN? I'm confused!

So all those nice Acorn people are out of work now thanks to the people they were tying to help out and you too FOX. Murdoch FTW Aussie Aussie Aussie Oy! Oy! Oy!

@chilaxe, I'm beginning to grow tired of having you try to beat everyone down with this accusation of tribalism and cognitive bias.

Since you are immune to the pull of these forces, please enlighten us, is global warming real or fake?

Is ACORN a criminal institution, or was the video published by James O'Keefe unrepresentative of the organization?

Once you work those two to a definitive conclusion, I have two more:

Who was telling the truth to the best of their ability about climate change, the scientists at East Anglia, or the people on Fox who reported that it was a hoax?

Who was telling the truth about ACORN to the best of their ability, James O'Keefe, or the people who said it did a lot of good for communities?

Finally, if your answers to those questions are, respectively, global warming is real, O'Keefe's video was unrepresentative, the East Anglia scientists, and the people who said it did a lot of good, wouldn't you be mad about the way in which the media has portrayed these events?

@chilaxe, here's probably the key paragraphs from the report from Brown's office:

The edited O’Keefe videos released on the BigGovernment.com website portrayed ACORN as an organization infested with employees committing crimes. However, the impression of rampant illegal conduct created by the recordings at the various ACORN offices around the country is not supported by the evidence related to the videos in California. Our investigation revealed facts which were not reflected in the recordings. The San Diego employee’s answers were influenced by his limited English and intent to contact the police. The San Bernardino ACORN receptionist knew it to be a prank and made outrageous and false statements.

O’Keefe stated he was out to make a point and to damage ACORN and therefore did not act as a journalist objectively reporting a story. The video releases were heavily edited to feature only the worst or most inappropriate statements of the various ACORN employees and to omit some of the most salient statements by O’Keefe and Giles. Each of the ACORN employees recorded in California was a low level employee whose job was to help the needy individuals who walked in the door seeking assistance. Giles and O’Keefe lied to engender compassion, but then edited their statements from the released videos. Would it have been best had each ACORN employee simply refused to deal with the couple and shown them the door when their story came out? Of course.

Which is to say it's #2 on steroids. For an example of how editing can be worse than merely cherrypicking, let me show you how I could quote your response to make it look like you said something you didn't actually say:

When asked about the ACORN scandal, chilaxe said, "No ACORN staff behaved inappropriately." We also asked if it's true that in his spare time he reads books, and fucks goats, he replied, "The latter claim doesn't seem extraordinary and would generally be expected to be true."

I assume you won't contest these quotations, because "that kind of spin is a daily occurrence in the political realm."

Quoting you for real this time, you said:

My experience in the sciences is that perspectives from anybody who's a passionate culture warrior should be taken with caution. Reality is just data, and the more you care, the more you've set traps for your intelligence that you may never discover.

Which I completely agree with. That's why you trying to defend what O'Keefe did is a bit silly, since he literally said that he intentionally set out to destroy ACORN, not to provide some sort of truthful recitation of facts. This is in stark contrast to who you're accusing of bias, namely the Attorney General of California, who's under quite a lot of pressure to give a truthful account of the facts.

Hi @NetRunner.

What is Brown & Maddow's claim, exactly? That 1. no ACORN staff behaved inappropriately, or that 2. O'Keefe is only showing the bad parts (cherry-picking) and using editing to make them look even worse? I think (I could be wrong) Brown & Maddow are technically making the latter claim, but they think they're making the former claim. The latter claim doesn't seem extraordinary and would generally be expected to be true... that kind of spin is a daily occurrence in the political realm.

Re: "do you contest Jerry Brown's account of the facts purely on the basis of his political ideology?"
My experience in the sciences is that perspectives from anybody who's a passionate culture warrior should be taken with caution. Reality is just data, and the more you care, the more you've set traps for your intelligence that you may never discover.

@chilaxe, do you contest Jerry Brown's account of the facts purely on the basis of his political ideology?

Think this through for a second: he's not making a subjective claim, he's reporting objective facts, facts which essentially are just a description of what O'Keefe's own tapes have on them. If he's lying, O'Keefe can get him into mountains of trouble by releasing the tapes and showing Brown to be lying about what he saw, not to mention validating the reputation of everyone who hopped onto the story and reported it as fact, and making the destruction of ACORN seem truly righteous.