ACORN pimp arrested

Post Reply New Topic

I've been dreaming for such an argument.

While DentArthurDent also seems to base much of his political thought on a highly self-contained ideological system, you have to admit that he's at least a bit more sophisticated and elegant at it than Jacoby. Jacoby's political thought seems more like raw incoherent populist garbage - as I noted earlier more partisanship than even ideology.

As I said, my own experience underscores the fact that many right-wing Republicans are anti-democratic in their beliefs, and many examples can be found all the time. Many will not deny it; after all, it's usually the right-wingers who like to correct those who say that the United States is a democracy, saying that it is in fact a "constitutional republic".

The ACORN lynching party that took place last fall was deeply offensive to me, particularly as it became clear that the producer of the video had malicious intent and a checkered past. He quickly purged his blog when people got to it and found his racist musings in it.

Obama himself seems to be highly conscious of trying to avoid negative black stereotypes of the "angry black man" and the "black conspiracy theorist" and tries so, so hard to be "respectable" - which means being meek before the vicious attacks of his opponents. I can't help but think that a white president taking power under similar conditions would have done more to defend himself because such a president would not have this baggage attached to his race as a result of the endemic racism that still exists in American society. Obama is also a conservative politician and that's another reason why he's not being confrontational but still, with the other side determined to destroy him using all means he must recognise these enemies for what they are and act accordingly.

I disagree that Obama's political eunuchism stems from racial conflicts he could start. Other centrist Democrats - notably Kerry - have displayed a similar ineffectiveness when it comes to the right-wing smear machine. I think it is simply because the language most effective in combating the Republican right-wing populist attacks - progressive populism and pro-labour rhetoric - are offensive to the Democrat's donors.

So basically you're calling me a kool-aid drinking Fox News watcher? I'll admit to watching Fox News more than the other channels when I watch cable news actually, the mortal sin that it is, but I just find it more balanced than the other cable news channels. There really isn't much of a choice if you watch cable news. MSNBC is a joke of a news organization, a caricature of what the left accuses Fox News of being. CNN doesn't really focus on politics as much. More on entertainment news and their news personalities like Anderson Cooper, Nancy Grace, and whatnot but they still have fairly noticeable slant.(like their news reporter insulting the Tea Party folks to their face) I try to sample a bit from them all though/

I take everything with a grain of salt though and I probably read more news online than I watch cable news. I read stuff from RCP which is pretty balanced among others like BBC for world news and yes, god forbid Drudge and the occasional Breitbart article. So I agree, I'm not an ideologue, I think I'm young to be one, but not so much with that I'm just parroting what ever Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck are saying. I don't think they're the devil though, please don't shoot me. I like to think as myself as an independent but whatever.



Well Obama seems to agree that terrorists don't have the right to speedy trial and can be held indefinitely despite the administrations assertion that our troops are around the world are engaged in an "overseas contingency operation" against "man-made disasters" rather than the Global War On Terror and Islamic Jihad. They shouldn't be given the same rights as American citizens since they pose a threat to our national security. Like 1 in 7 of the released Gitmo detainees have returned to the battlefield, some of which to senior positions in al-Qaeda and the Taliban such as Abdullah Gulam Rasoul who is like the "top operations officer for the Taliban in southern Afghanistan and Said Ali Al-Shihri in Yemen, the deputy leader of al-Qaeda In The Arabian Peninsula.(I actually wrote a paper back in high school about Guantanamo which a big part of was about the Yemeni inmates and growing threat in Yemen and how they could not be released to that country) There's a reason these guys can't be released. I agree though, there shouldn't be keeping the ones we can't release for the rest of their lives, those ones should be executed. I might be a little extreme on the issue though. The fact is, we're at war.

Beyond that though, I think the inmates are treated fairly well if they cooperate. They get like 12 hours of rec time, an extensive library, a number of food options, and religious accommodations. The Chinese Uighurs were given laptops and web training. The Uighurs are interesting since they can't be released since China would kill them all and no country wants them since they don't want to damage diplomatic ties with the PRC.




Well the Zogby poll is asking if American's would support a public option in a bill nothing like Obama/Reid/Pelosi's bill. Their's doesn't include tort reform, one of the bills includes the mandate and the public option.(which is pretty central to their plan to my understanding) You should be able to buy insurance over state lines too. Pretty much the all polls have shown the public to be against this bill.

I think most people don't believe there is going to "death panels" deciding the fate of grandma. However I think most of the opposition sees the public option as an eventual backdoor to single payer. There's a shortage of doctors and nurses in this country right now, imagine that with an additional 30 million patients. They can't pay for Medicare as it is how would they pay for all these new folks? There would necessarily have to be health care rationing and especially if there was no pre-existing conditions there would have to be mandated coverage(which I don't even really think is constitutional) or why else would you even buy health insurance? I agree though, without the public option this bill just seems like a huge boon for the insurance companies and the other special interests. That's mostly why I think this bill should be killed along with the fact I don't trust Pelosi or Reid at all especially after all the deals they did trying to get this thing to pass. If I'm wrong on any of this, please correct me since I'll admit to not being an expert on this. I just think there are free market solutions.

I have to disagree with the whole notion that the Democrats lost in Massachusetts because they weren't far enough left. The committed left and right will turn out for their candidates regardless but elections are won with moderates and independents. In Scott Brown's case even a quarter of the democrats who voted went for him in Massachusetts. While Martha Coakley was a rather unappealing candidate who made a number a key mistakes in the final days, Scott Brown won because the two main platforms he ran on which were his promise to be the 41st vote against the healthcare bill, his support of trialing terrorists in military tribunals, and his support enhanced interrogation. I just don't buy the left would vote against their interests to spite their lack of "success". They clearly did not stay home as the turnout was very high for a special election.

p.s. I don't really like the whole talking about me like I'm not here thing, come on guys. I don't think I'm going to try to get into any arguments with this Dent guy either, thanks for the heads up. I tend to stay away from the long "quote war".

It's true that Obama could be ineffective like Kerry without being considered black but you see if he even suggests that there are problems he'd be compared with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan - there was lots of talk about how he wasn't really a black politician and his job is to continue acting as such... despite his conservatism he is still branded a socialist, a communist, a Nazi, an America-hater, a Muslim, and his race goes to the very heart of this characterisation. Blacks are seen by many as Anti-Americans - opposed fundamentally to America as they see it, and Obama can't hide from that as much as he tries.

Bill Clinton may have been considered to be a murderer, or a corrupt politico, and there was the odd suggestion that he was a communist agent because he visited Moscow in the winter, but the hatred I don't think reached the level as that to which Obama is subjected.

Recent news out has linked James O'Keefe to white supremacists. I would like to think that the media would cover this adequately but naturally they will not.

Polls show that single payer is more popular than the public option is, by the way, and the Democratic base did not show up for Coakley.

Probably because that James O'Keefe/White supremacist is a complete smear job.

http://washingtonindependent.com/75728/ ... club-event

Now I'm starting to wonder if you're joking about all this since you're upset about people accusing Obama of being a socialist or a communist yet are calling O'Keefe a racist and Nazi at the same time.

Just because Breitbart says something doesn't make it true, he with his fake "Hear our prayers Obama" video... O'Keefe did attend a white supremacist confab in 2006, he admitted to it himself. His blog, quickly taken down when it was exposed, was riddled with racist musings. They have him dead to right, he's a confirmed racist.

There's a common thread to O'Keefe's video stunts - in each case he makes race an issue, or tries to denigrate black people in particular. The ACORN videos with the pimp outfit that's some caricature of black culture, riddled as he thinks it is with pimps 'n' hos. The going to Planned Parenthood and telling them that he wants his money to go to aborting black foetuses. His publisher clearing house scam video where he picks on black people. This is a common thread with O'Keefe... he's as guilty as hell.

Now, it may be considered to be his right to be racist. After all, it isn't a crime. Sure it isn't. But what he's accused of doing in Landrieu's office is, and what he was doing with the ACORN videos did break laws, and that he is a racist has a bearing on the question of his credibility - that a law was passed and policy made because of his racist work is something that those who made this policy have to contemplate, and the rest of society has to be very critical of their actions in so doing.

that article has nothing to do with Breitbart. That's "the source" that has been cited from these liberal blogs about O'Keefe. "The source" says it aint true. Sorry bro.

Oh, please. Terrorism really is not even close to as big a deal as people make it out to be. We're hardly at "war" when we haven't been seriously attacked in about 9 years. We've lost more people in fruitless wild goose chases and tilting at windmills than our "enemies" were ever able to kill on their own.

As for the rest of your post, I don't have the energy to respond in detail, but yes, you are clearly very much of a partisan.

What is fascinating about terrorism is that a few bloodthirsty idiots with box cutters and a primitive skill in flying has cost the USA billions, upset the economy of "the most powerful nation in the world" and scared the piss out of almost everybody and even almost a decade after the event a guy with a pants full of explosives can still upset the applecart. Is this or is this not a nation of incompetent dummies?

It shows a nation not used to vulnerability of that sort on its own soil, Europe seems to have more experience in that arena.

I think we got enough flavor of it to get a sense that they have some very serious problems within their organization, and, signing people up multiple times to vote should be an individual felony, we should hold it in that regard.

As far as the doctored videos and the ladies helping him and Doug Gile's daughter to open a new whorehouse under her management - I think its quite difficult to claim that as being anything other than what it is, you can't bend that any which way. Do you think they could have perhaps given her as much advice on where to find a womens' shelter and turn her life around? Perhaps gotten her in with some battered women's groups? There are a lot of other options they had, compassionate and worthwhile options, than dialing the police to escort them out of their office. Can the claim be made that these were just a few rogue employees? Depends on how many times this was repeated.

James O'Keefe, if he broke the law he broke the law - that is his problem. At the same time, if Leila Rose found herself in a similar position after muckraking abortion clinics and perhaps got carried away with herself and crossed the line - does that in and of itself disqualify everything she ever said? Should it work the same way for someone who, say, is uncovering all kinds of corruption or Spike Lee truths in the oil industry? In big business? In places that are supposedly right-wing strongholds, if they overstep their bounds? I really don't think so, if the work up to that point actually brought something to light - it was worthwhile and still means something. Very few liberals will muckrake ACORN or abortion clinics just like very few conservatives will have urges to muckrake certain types of businesses, chase the Heritage Foundation all over the place trying to find their hidden evil, etc. etc.

Do we want to do away with muckraking then simply because intent-mongering can be made of it whenever its done? Hypothetically O'Keefe or Rose could have been off-the-rail pentacostals believing the Apocalypse will be in June of this year and that they're making the way for the Lord - if they actually had objective results and sensible people saw something that was legitimately a major problem within an organization, so be it, this is how humanity both specializes, buts heads, and as well audits its own society - its intent driven. Even if your working for Deloitte and Touche in one of their more extended spheres of auditing where objectivity for a client is supposedly paramount - what brings people of the like in? Attestation to the willing, that's not usually where you'll find too many Upton Sinclair truths about our world.

O'Keefe is a racist. His video is full of edits and voiceovers and misrepresentations. You can't imagine how things can be twisted in this way. There is no evidence whatsoever that ACORN was involved in wanting to set up a whorehouse. None. Zero. No plans were put into play for this. Let me say something else. Let's say I was a real investigative journalist, and I thought that ACORN was sponsoring whorehouses. For one thing, I would have to hear about it somewhere and not make it up. Next, I would see if I could send people to the actual whorehouse. Proof that in fact ACORN was sponsoring whorehouses. This is not what O'Keefe did. He said, "You know those blacks they all talk about pimps and hos, that's what they are. That's urban black life. So I think that they see pimps and hos as part of the scene, so if I sent some pimps there with their hos the folks at ACORN will say that it's perfectly normal and help such people set up for that." - essentially that's what he decided, and it was based on an extremely racist stereotype of urban black culture.

There is no proof whatsoever that ACORN sponsored whorehouses. In fact, the reactions many people had were tinged with their own racism - there go those blacks again, can't do anything other than be pimps and hos... Blackwater, by the way, has trafficked child sex slaves, but there's no stigma attached to that, they need to service the troops after all! Their contracts are never in doubt, even though its chief has ordered the murders of U.S - based whistleblowers, or so it's alleged...

There is no proof that ACORN opened a file for these people and sponsored this... in fact, in most cases O'Keefe showed up as the prostitute's boyfriend and spoke of saving her from an abusive pimp. There was one agent who told her how to hide her money from him. O'Keefe edited to make it seem as if the agent was telling her how to hide the money from the IRS! There was another thing about how an ACORN agent was telling her how to file her taxes so that she declare her money made from prostitution as she must under the law. The law also does not obligate her to incriminate herself, so there's usually some category to use like "personal services" or something like that - so this was put in the video as some evil ACORN agent trying to fool the law and encourage prostitution because the agent did the right thing and advised the prostitute to pay her taxes!

I'll give you this - if he did go knocking on whorehouse doors asking who funded them he could have gotten some rather high honors at the Darwin Awards, might have made for much more entertaining video feed seeing guns or knives waved in his face (which of course guns and knives aren't racial - if you knocked on the door of any of the mafia's clandestine operations you could get similar results).


I had to laugh when I watched the videos, even growing up in the suburbs I've never in my life heard two people who sounded so white, almost more like caricatures of white people than the real thing. The very fact that anyone even took them seriously blew my mind. Sounding that shmucky and that really being them, what you're saying I guess would only surprise me so much. Still, unless someone can prove that the ladies in the video were actually black GOP members fronting as ACORN officials and that the whole thing was a hoax, its tough to put out of mind how they handled the situation.


The common denominator is everywhere. You had some yokels after 9/11 when, if asked about their opinions on what to do with the issue of terrorism, liked to reply 'nuke em all'. Its almost funny if not tragic but, I think people like that just go to show that there are a lot of stupid people out there. Conservatism has no shortage, liberalism has no shortage.


I'd put that as being of even more importance than the ACORN issue - if true - I won't say I believe or disbelieve it as I'm not apt to try and defend broad swaths of people, especially when they do stupid things, regardless of who's side of political affiliation they're on. The Abu Graib thing sickened me as well, as in yes it was a media circus and well deserved - it kind of reminded me of why I really needed to look at it on a case by case basis.

If that's a real issue it should be flushed out - mainly because if Blackwater has that many problems they likely need to cut their contract, arrest and criminally try those who are involved in that caper, and get a different contractor or perhaps several smaller competing contractors who aren't playing those sorts of games.


Depends if you consider donations to a state political campaign a tax shelter.


If they didn't at least offer alternatives - ie. women's shelters or how to get enrolled in a workman's rehab in another state, I don't think they really explored enough options to venerate their choices.

To add though, I don't like it when either side or any side has a 'vote early, vote often, even vote post-mortum' style of voter empowerment. Like I said, I take the ballot seriously and that should be a federal offense, and obviously its a process that IMO just about needs SOX type controls and serious audit work done on it, our nation is in trouble if we can't trust voter turnout or legitimacy of elections (even having enough wiggle room for one side to play scandal off against the other).

It's not up to these people in ACORN to judge other people - it's to help other people. I think one of the issues here is that people demand that social services of all kinds sit in judgment of people, use their leverage to force people to have drug tests and the like - this is what so-called conservatives demand. Funny isn't it, they say "We can't have government programmes, have the state take over this and that, because the government will use it to tell us what to do, to micromanage our lives", then they turn around and demand that government programmes be used to tell people what to do and to micromanage their lives.

Also, I have not read all the transcripts and watched all the videos but there's something very suspicious about the fact that the transcripts on Breitbart paint a very different picture from the videos. Breitbart seems to be making a statement about the stupidity and / or the dishonesty of journalists. Remember the "Dark Alliance" series when the CIA was tied to the beginning of the crack epidemic because they needed new market for the cocaine used to finance the terrorists in Central America? The journalist who published this, who was driven to suicide over it, was pilloried constantly and blacks were attacked as conspiracy theorist loons, in particular Maxime Waters... the CIA published a self-investigation report - the executive summary said that the CIA was not guilty, so the headlines blared "Webb Wrong, is Crackpot: CIA DId Nothing Wrong" - however, if you were to actually read the whole report, it showed that it was an admission of guilt. The CIA cleverly cleared itself in the summary, which the journalists read and trumpeted, and confessed in the actual report, which was never read... the same thing Breitbart has done. He posted the unedited transcripts knowing that no one would read them - these transcripts, based on what I have seen so far, clear ACORN of all wrongdoing.

Well, well, well...

Notable Republican Tom Tancredo told the Teabagger Assembly that Obama was elected because "we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country."

So, anyone want to deny that Republicans are for voter suppression?