PDA

View Full Version : Obama's Connection to ACORN?


Web Rider
10-01-2008, 06:16 PM
Posts on ACORN were moved from the Bank bailout bill to this thread which Yar-El had originally started (other posts got inserted ahead of it due to them being posted earlier than Yar-El's initial post in this thread). Some of the conversation may sound a bit disjointed in the first few posts as a result--the system merges posts by time of post, not by what thread they were moved from. --Jae

Not sure if anyone else has posted this but the Democrats tried to sneak a bunch of funds for Acorn into the bailout bill.

Acorn is a leftwing activist organization, that has gotten in trouble for voter fraud.

Oh and Barack Obama was not only their lawyer, but also served in a leadership role.

Because obviously giving funds to a group that helps out low income families is so much worse than say...getting money for a bridge and not building it....while keeping the money.

GarfieldJL
10-01-2008, 06:23 PM
Because obviously giving funds to a group that helps out low income families is so much worse than say...getting money for a bridge and not building it....while keeping the money.

Problem is that's not what they do, they in reality register people that don't even exist to vote and then flood polling places with phony votes for Democrats.

And Senator Obama has extremely close ties to Acorn.

Thing is if the Democrats hadn't blocked legislation recommended by Bush in 2003, or legislation that McCain supported twice once in 2005-06 and once in 2007, we wouldn't be in this mess.

But the Dems didn't want to lose their kickbacks from Fanny/Freddie. (sp?)

Yar-El
10-01-2008, 06:35 PM
Obama's Connection to ACORN?
It sounded like a second topic, so I opened up a new thread. Who is ACORN and what is Obama's connection.

The National Review: Inside Obama’s Acorn (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDZiMjkwMDczZWI5ODdjOWYxZTIzZGIyNzEyMjE0ODI=)

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: Barack Obama's Closet (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/datelinedc/s_488184.html): But back in Chicago, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) is more important than Iraq or Washington. ACORN and its associated Midwest Academy, both founded in the 1970s, continue to train and mobilize activists throughout the country, often using them to manipulate public opinion through "direct action." It's sometimes a code for illegal activities.

Wall Street Journal: Democratic Ally Mobilizes In Housing Crunch (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121745181676698197.html)

I'm reading up on ACORN now. Another poster had made a connection between Obama, the $700 billion dollar bail out, and a radical group called ACORN. Who are they? Where is the connection? What do they have to do with the bail out?

Original post: Not sure if anyone else has posted this but the Democrats tried to sneak a bunch of funds for Acorn into the bailout bill.

Acorn is a leftwing activist organization, that has gotten in trouble for voter fraud.

Oh and Barack Obama was not only their lawyer, but also served in a leadership role.

Web Rider
10-01-2008, 06:38 PM
Problem is that's not what they do, they in reality register people that don't even exist to vote and then flood polling places with phony votes for Democrats.
Not that this is particularly unique to the Democrats.

And Senator Obama has extremely close ties to Acorn.
Considering it's a major political origination in his home town, that's hardly surprising.

Thing is if the Democrats hadn't blocked legislation recommended by Bush in 2003, or legislation that McCain supported twice once in 2005-06 and once in 2007, we wouldn't be in this mess.
"this mess" has been a long time building. And it's blame lies with everyone from the average american to the federal reserve. Democrats and Republicans alike. Also, in case you didn't notice, in 2003, Republicans controlled Congress.

Is the solution "give them more money"? Not really. Will it help? probably for a while. But the inherent problems remain in the market with bad lending policies and little oversight.

But the Dems didn't want to lose their kickbacks from Fanny/Freddie. (sp?)
And neither do the Republicans.

Web Rider
10-01-2008, 06:48 PM
How often is "sometimes"? What does the writer consider an "illegal activity"? Is it one defined by a clear law, such as breaking and entering, or is it protesting without a permit? Boycotting some goods or something?

"Dateline DC" seems to just put things next to each other and then presume that they have something in common. Because the disappearance of some guy is right next to where he's talking about other things, we are left with the conclusion they are related, which in reality they have nothing in common.

And lets be fair, if big business lobbyists can get money from congress to do stuff that is beneficial to the Senators, such as giving massive money to oil companies while they're making windfall profits, it's hardly unbelievable to think the other side might give money to people who support it. If the housing crash is kicking people out of their homes, then to avoid them living off our taxes and in the streets, we need to get them a home. Government-created projects are what helped bring us out of the Great Depression, it worked, and so it can again.

Corinthian
10-01-2008, 07:47 PM
You aren't denying that ACORN is involved in Voter Fraud? Strange. I don't know anything about ACORN or it's connections to Obama, but the fact that you're so blithe about the fact that Obama is connected to an organization accused of Voter Fraud concerns me.

Web Rider
10-01-2008, 07:53 PM
You aren't denying that ACORN is involved in Voter Fraud? Strange. I don't know anything about ACORN or it's connections to Obama, but the fact that you're so blithe about the fact that Obama is connected to an organization accused of Voter Fraud concerns me.

I'm not denying or attesting to it, I'm saying IF it's true, it's not entirely unbelievable. I haven't found a lot of information one way or the other so I'm not sure.

GarfieldJL
10-01-2008, 10:09 PM
I'm not denying or attesting to it, I'm saying IF it's true, it's not entirely unbelievable. I haven't found a lot of information one way or the other so I'm not sure.

It was beyond merely involved, he was a lawyer for them and helped train their activists. That was his "Community Organizing" experience.

GarfieldJL
10-01-2008, 10:18 PM
Registering convicted Felons, dead people, illegal aliens, people that don't even exist, and people's pets to vote is illegal activity putting it mildly.

And Obama was not only their lawyer, but he helped train their activists, what do you think his "Community Organizing" experience was?

El Sitherino
10-01-2008, 10:29 PM
Registering convicted Felons, dead people, illegal aliens, people that don't even exist, and people's pets to vote is illegal activity putting it mildly.

A lot of groups do that on all sides. How the hell do you think Ross Perot got so many votes in '92?

And Obama was not only their lawyer, but he helped train their activists, what do you think his "Community Organizing" experience was?
I don't see how him representing someone legally makes him "one of them". Also, we know his community organizing records and what he did as an organizer.


Besides, George Bush used to do coke, drive his car and drink a beer at the same time.

We still elected him.

Jae Onasi
10-01-2008, 10:33 PM
Acorn workers have been implicated in voter fraud in WI in 2004 (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=780716) and again in recent months--it's a pretty big issue here.

That does not mean Obama even knew about voter fraud in Chicago.

Then again, I take that back--everyone knows there's voter fraud in Chicago. However, whether Obama was involved in it or not is another issue.

GarfieldJL
10-01-2008, 10:37 PM
Acorn workers have been implicated in voter fraud in WI in 2004 (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=780716) and again in recent months--it's a pretty big issue here.

That does not mean Obama even knew about voter fraud in Chicago.

Then again, I take that back--everyone knows there's voter fraud in Chicago. However, whether Obama was involved in it or not is another issue.

Ah but he was their lawyer and helped train their people in Chicago back when he was a Community Organizer.

Web Rider
10-01-2008, 10:44 PM
Ah but he was their lawyer and helped train their people in Chicago back when he was a Community Organizer.

no, he didn't. He represented their people in legal situations. His records as community orginizer do not include "training activists". Unless you've got some links to back you up?

mimartin
10-01-2008, 10:45 PM
Ah but he was their lawyer and helped train their people in Chicago back when he was a Community Organizer.
Do you have a source beyond Fox News, Rush Limbaugh or any other bias entertainment source? Is this a similar type of attack as the Swift Boat attacks on John Kerry or Jerry Killian attacks on President Bushís military record?

El Sitherino
10-01-2008, 10:47 PM
Ah but he was their lawyer and helped train their people in Chicago back when he was a Community Organizer.

Again, simply being legal counsel in court hearings does not provide one privileged information to all acts that take place, simply what happens when he represents them and what he's representing them for.

And just because they're known vote frauders doesn't mean his association is something negative. Thousands of non-douchebags join PETA despite it mainly being pretentious douchebags.

Jae Onasi
10-01-2008, 11:23 PM
Ah but he was their lawyer and helped train their people in Chicago back when he was a Community Organizer.

That doesn't mean he trained them to commit fraud, or that he even knew that some people were committing this fraud. When I became a deputy registrar in Ohio and was registering voters, I was carefully informed by the staff about the law regarding those registrations, and what to do and not do (e.g. don't register dead people, etc.). In fact, if he knew about fraud and didn't do something to stop it, he'd have been disbarred and likely brought up on charges for violating election law.

Tommycat
10-02-2008, 12:59 AM
I dunno Jae, a lot of people get away with a lot of stuff. I'm not saying he's guilty of any wrongdoing, just pointing out that with Chicago being what it is, it is pretty suspicious.

Of course I had a friend who was a defense lawyer. He defended several people that were pretty well guilty. He didn't want to know if they had really done it or not, instead he always started with the assumption that the accusations were false.

GarfieldJL
10-02-2008, 10:25 AM
He was more than merely a lawyer for them:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09292008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/os_dangerous_pals_131216.htm?page=0

This also ties into the bailout, but the two are interrelated
http://www.thenextright.com/ozarkguru/major-earmark-in-democrat-bailout-agreement
From article
In the "agreement in principle," there is the effect of a major "earmark" which commits money from future "profits" to be given to nonprofits organizations like ACORN, National Council of La Raza and potentially the National Urban League. This agreement clearly evidences that the Government expects to benefit in the future from the bailout when the values of property rises and mortgages or properties are then sold by the Federal government. The agreement -- "Directs a certain percentage of future profits to the Affordable Housing Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund to meet America's housing needs."
In the proposed bailout agreement, Sen. Christopher Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee and other Democrats desire to pre-direct that future funds (profits) not be returned to the taxpayers via the treasury but that they be used to underwrite potential questionable (maybe even illegal activities) of certain nonprofits which have had a hand in promoting and expanding access to "no money down" loans for minorities, illegal voter registrations and extensive lobbying activities.

The article goes on to say:
ACORN is the agency where Sen. Barack Obama worked as a trainer for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform (ACORN), whose affiliate, Project Vote, is known for voter fraud. It is this same organization from which a large part of the mortgage mess has grown. After Harvard Law School, Obama provided legal representation for ACORN. Obama sat on the boards of the philanthropic Woods Foundation and the Joyce Foundation which both funneled millions of dollars to ACORN.

I think it's more than just a legally representing them in a court case.

mimartin
10-02-2008, 11:33 AM
What does this article have to do with Obama training ACORN in how to perform illegal acts?
In those years, he also conducted leadership-training seminars for ACORN's up-and-coming organizers. That is, Obama was training the army of ACORN organizers who participated in Madeline Talbott's drive against Chicago's banks.
Oh my God, he conducted leadership-training seminars. Well I’m in trouble too, because I have done the same thing within my company and the community. Again, what does that have to do with voter fraud?

What was Obama connection to illegal activity with ACORN? The only thing I see illegal about ACORN is voter fraud, so what is Obama connection to voter fraud? Saying he trained members has nothing to do with it, unless he trained them in how to commit voters fraud.
I think it's more than just a legally representing them in a court case.Yes, but there is nothing illegal or unethical about being associated with them unless he was involved in illegal activity or knew about the activity.

I helped train a group of accountants to play volleyball as a team for the company picnic, by the end of the next year their firm was out of business due to fraud which involved members of the team. I also had donated money to a charity drive conducted by their company. I’m I guilty by association?

People committing illegal activities usually don’t advertise that they are involved in illegal activity. So unless there is proof that Obama was involved in the illegal activity or proof that he has spider sense I will hold him blameless.

GarfieldJL
10-02-2008, 01:12 PM
Quoting the Article again:
ACORN is the agency where Sen. Barack Obama worked as a trainer for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform (ACORN), whose affiliate, Project Vote, is known for voter fraud. It is this same organization from which a large part of the mortgage mess has grown. After Harvard Law School, Obama provided legal representation for ACORN. Obama sat on the boards of the philanthropic Woods Foundation and the Joyce Foundation which both funneled millions of dollars to ACORN.

Also I need to find the source again, but on at least one of those foundations, Obama was in charge of finances and that was his "executive experience."

mimartin
10-02-2008, 01:32 PM
Again, what is illegal about this?

ACORN is not a drug cartel or a prostitution ring. Working for them does not make Obama a criminal, no more than working for Enron or Arthur Anderson made my friends criminals.

So what proof do you have that Obama was involved with voter fraud? Do you have proof of any other illegal activity performed by ACORN? If so, where is the proof of Obama’s involvement or knowledge?

Just because the author of the article used illegal sounding terms like funneled, does not make it illegal. Obama sat on the boards of the philanthropic Woods Foundation and the Joyce Foundation which both contributed millions of dollars to ACORN Fixed! Feel better?

GarfieldJL
10-02-2008, 02:40 PM
Again, what is illegal about this?


Aside from him being involved in forcing banks to make the loans that caused this mess, and potentially being involved in voter fraud. At very least he needs to be investigated.


ACORN is not a drug cartel or a prostitution ring. Working for them does not make Obama a criminal, no more than working for Enron or Arthur Anderson made my friends criminals.


No, they just violate federal law and try to hijack the election process to get radicals elected into office.


So what proof do you have that Obama was involved with voter fraud? Do you have proof of any other illegal activity performed by ACORN? If so, where is the proof of Obama’s involvement or knowledge?


There is enough there to demand further investigation.


Just because the author of the article used illegal sounding terms like funneled, does not make it illegal. Fixed! Feel better?

Actually I don't feel any better, because you're distorting the article, those two foundations were supposed to be funding education, and instead they are funding a left-wing radical organization and Ayers' pet projects.

Jae Onasi
10-02-2008, 03:59 PM
I trained a gal to do preliminary tests at one of the offices I worked at. A few weeks later we discovered she was involved in some cash missing from the cash drawer (which mysteriously 'reappeared' under a printer when she was confronted with the discrepency). We also discovered right around the time she quit that some peoples' personal items also had gone missing while she was around, and the theft problem went away when she quit.

I trained her. The office manager trained her on correct handling of the store's money and cash register. We followed policy, but this girl was just a thief (alleged of course). We were not guilty of her theft, and in fact trained her on appropriate company policy. However, we couldn't make her follow it. It also doesn't make us thieves because she was one--you're implying that Obama a. knew and b. condoned the illegal behavior, and we just don't know if either is true.

Sure, people can investigate if there was any evidence of Obama telling people to register voters fraudulently, and if legitimate evidence is found, it should be brought to light. However, I don't think we'd ever find that kind of evidence, because I don't think Obama had much to do with the day-to-day activities of the registrars themselves.

GarfieldJL
10-02-2008, 04:08 PM
I trained a gal to do preliminary tests at one of the offices I worked at. A few weeks later we discovered she was involved in some cash missing from the cash drawer (which mysteriously 'reappeared' under a printer when she was confronted with the discrepency). We also discovered right around the time she quit that some peoples' personal items also had gone missing while she was around, and the theft problem went away when she quit.

I trained her. The office manager trained her on correct handling of the store's money and cash register. We followed policy, but this girl was just a thief (alleged of course). We were not guilty of her theft, and in fact trained her on appropriate company policy. However, we couldn't make her follow it. It also doesn't make us thieves because she was one--you're implying that Obama a. knew and b. condoned the illegal behavior, and we just don't know if either is true.

Sure, people can investigate if there was any evidence of Obama telling people to register voters fraudulently, and if legitimate evidence is found, it should be brought to light. However, I don't think we'd ever find that kind of evidence, because I don't think Obama had much to do with the day-to-day activities of the registrars themselves.

Difference between you and Senator Obama, you haven't taken steps to hide your associations. You were honest and upfront about it, he was trying to hide it.

Web Rider
10-02-2008, 05:10 PM
Difference between you and Senator Obama, you haven't taken steps to hide your associations. You were honest and upfront about it, he was trying to hide it.

In order to "hide" something, you have to have done it in the first place. Since he hasn't done anything, he's not hiding anything. See the logic here?

GarfieldJL
10-02-2008, 05:35 PM
In order to "hide" something, you have to have done it in the first place. Since he hasn't done anything, he's not hiding anything. See the logic here?

Uh it has come out that he was hiding the depth of his association to these people and organizations.

For example his 'Ayers merely neighbors and out children went to school together' explanation. It turns out they were on the same boards together, heck they even made the rules for one of the foundations they both were on. Top that off his kids and Ayers' kids couldn't have gone to school together, see the problem with his story.

Web Rider
10-02-2008, 08:31 PM
Uh it has come out that he was hiding the depth of his association to these people and organizations.

For example his 'Ayers merely neighbors and out children went to school together' explanation. It turns out they were on the same boards together, heck they even made the rules for one of the foundations they both were on. Top that off his kids and Ayers' kids couldn't have gone to school together, see the problem with his story.

So, he knew this guy better than he said. Does that make him a terrorist? No, it doesn't. He probably wanted to keep it low 'cause he knew all the media morons would have a field day with it and it would distract from ACTUAL issues.

Hey, I'm not the biggest fan of Obama, but seriously, there are far more important things to talk about.

mimartin
10-02-2008, 08:46 PM
Hey, I'm not the biggest fan of Obama, but seriously, there are far more important things to talk about.Well if the Right can’t find anything real to criticize Obama on, the just must rely on making stuff up. Obama is a Muslim. Obama is friends with terrorist. Obama did illegal activity for ACORN. We have no real proof mind you, but if he wasn’t guilty he could prove his innocents.:rolleyes:

Now that the polls are going against John McCain I look for more of these scare tactics from the right.

SD Nihil
10-02-2008, 09:19 PM
Well if the Right can’t find anything real to criticize Obama on, the just must rely on making stuff up. Obama is a Muslim. Obama is friends with terrorist. Obama did illegal activity for ACORN. We have no real proof mind you, but if he wasn’t guilty he could prove his innocents.:rolleyes:

Now that the polls are going against John McCain I look for more of these scare tactics from the right.



I'd like to see evidence to these things, but I do not believe Obama is a Muslim. That was a rumor that has never been proven. Obama has said he's Christian. And even if he was Muslim who cares. Why would that be a bad thing? It should'nt.

You may say because we are in a war fighting Muslims. No. We are fighting terrorists who happen to be of Muslim faith. Muslims are not bad. It's those extremists who pervert the religion, it's those few who have twisted Muslim faith to ensite violence and holy war. But it is not a bad religion. And even if Obama was Muslim that's not a bad thing. There are extremist Morman cults who have raped children. Does this mean the Morman faith is bad? No the Morman faith is not bad. Because a few Catholic leaders raped young boys does not make the Catholic faith bad. The individuals who did the wrong are at fault, not the religion.

A religion isn't bad, people can be bad, and people can manipulate. I believe most Muslims are good people who some openly disagree heavily with our culture and what they deem as sinful. They have every right to have an opinion as do other religions.

So to say Obama's Muslim and that would be a bad thing in my opinion is wrong. Yeah I'm a conservative and I can point out when someone in my opinion is wrong about even the guy I'm not voting for.

GarfieldJL
10-03-2008, 02:30 PM
I'd like to see evidence to these things, but I do not believe Obama is a Muslim. That was a rumor that has never been proven. Obama has said he's Christian. And even if he was Muslim who cares. Why would that be a bad thing? It should'nt.


Not sure what this has to do with his ACORN association
Well here's some key things you aren't paying attention to :

1. Obama's father and step-father were Muslim
a. under Islamic Law you are born a Muslim if your father was Muslim, and it is sacrilige of the highest order if you reject Allah after being a Muslim.
-. I don't see Muslim groups calling for his head in fact groups like Hamas are actively supporting him.
2. If he is actually a Muslim and not a Christian it wouldn't really be that big of a deal, IF assuming he's a Muslim had been up front and honest about his faith. But if he is actually a Muslim and it comes out, then his campaign is finished because he'd have been lieing to everyone and the idea emerges, with his aide's secretly meeting with Hamas, that he's actually a sleeper agent.

That's Obama's problem compared to McCain.
McCain has been up front on negatives and if something is his fault he takes responsibility, but Obama on the other hand accuses people whom criticize him of being "fear-mongerers", racists, etc.

SD Nihil
10-03-2008, 02:59 PM
Not sure what this has to do with his ACORN association
Well here's some key things you aren't paying attention to :

1. Obama's father and step-father were Muslim
a. under Islamic Law you are born a Muslim if your father was Muslim, and it is sacrilige of the highest order if you reject Allah after being a Muslim.
-. I don't see Muslim groups calling for his head in fact groups like Hamas are actively supporting him.
2. If he is actually a Muslim and not a Christian it wouldn't really be that big of a deal, IF assuming he's a Muslim had been up front and honest about his faith. But if he is actually a Muslim and it comes out, then his campaign is finished because he'd have been lieing to everyone and the idea emerges, with his aide's secretly meeting with Hamas, that he's actually a sleeper agent.

That's Obama's problem compared to McCain.
McCain has been up front on negatives and if something is his fault he takes responsibility, but Obama on the other hand accuses people whom criticize him of being "fear-mongerers", racists, etc.

His relations being Muslim does not make him (Obama) Muslim. Just because a religion says your father and stuff were Muslim and says that makes you Muslim does not prevent that person from choosing not to be Muslim.

I simply was responding to others who saw claims by people saying Obama is Muslim like that would be a bad thing.

I think Muslims like him or prefer him over McCain because they think he won't be as tough or do the things McCain might do if elected.

And you said IF. Again it has not ben proven. McCain like you I'm voting for. I'm voting more for Palin though. But I believe this about him being Muslim is a rumor nothing more. A Christian family has a son and that son can choose to be athest. A family of Mormans can have a daughter that can choose to be Catholic. No matter what a religion says we can choose to follow it, continue to follow it, not follow it, and change. We live in a country where you can have freedom of religion or freedom not to have a religion. regardless if one religion considers that sacrilige.

If he turns out to be a sleeper agent IF elected I'll say your right. But at this point this him being Muslim is just a rumor not fact.

GarfieldJL
10-03-2008, 03:05 PM
I'm just pointing out that I'm not talking about the religion itself, I'm talking about being straight up and honest with the American People, if it comes out that Obama is actually a Muslim (assuming he is), it hurts his credibility. Just like his credibility would be hurt if people actually reported about how close his associations with Ayers and ACCORN are.

SD Nihil
10-03-2008, 03:11 PM
I'm just pointing out that I'm not talking about the religion itself, I'm talking about being straight up and honest with the American People, if it comes out that Obama is actually a Muslim (assuming he is), it hurts his credibility. Just like his credibility would be hurt if people actually reported about how close his associations with Ayers and ACCORN are.

I agree he's lied about other things. I agree that if any candidate lies that hurts their credibility. But again it has yet to be proven that he's Muslim. But if it is proven then yes him saying he's Christian would be a lie. But currently it's a rumor that is not the same as the facts he's been wrong on or lied about.

GarfieldJL
10-03-2008, 03:49 PM
I agree he's lied about other things. I agree that if any candidate lies that hurts their credibility. But again it has yet to be proven that he's Muslim. But if it is proven then yes him saying he's Christian would be a lie. But currently it's a rumor that is not the same as the facts he's been wrong on or lied about.

Back to topic, the fact he's involved in Chicago Politics and his "community organizing" is tied directly to a group that is well-known for voter fraud is pretty damning.

Det. Bart Lasiter
10-03-2008, 04:18 PM
Back to topic, the fact he's involved in Chicago Politics and his "community organizing" is tied directly to a group that is well-known for voter fraud is pretty damning.And McCain just added $150 billion in pork to the bailout bill, how about we call it even and admit that Obama, McCain, and every other politician in this country is crooked as ****?

GarfieldJL
10-03-2008, 04:23 PM
And McCain just added $150 billion in pork to the bailout bill, how about we call it even and admit that Obama, McCain, and every other politician in this country is crooked as ****?

It wasn't him who added the pork to the bill, he voted for the overall bill rather than see the entire bill tank and watch the economy collapse.


Also wasn't Obama supposed to be a new kind of politician, by your statement, he's just more of the same.

SD Nihil
10-03-2008, 04:27 PM
And McCain just added $150 billion in pork to the bailout bill, how about we call it even and admit that Obama, McCain, and every other politician in this country is crooked as ****?

I agree. Both Obama and McCain were for the bailout bill which regretfully just passed today. I feel it's the same bill as before, but with a lot of pork and regulations added in to regulate stuff, but worded to where it really cannot be enforced. Also, it gives Polsin and the same people who did this stuff the power. The same guys on Wall Street who did the wrong things in the first place. And you wonder why congress's approval rating is so low. The majority of their constituents (us) contacting them they've ignored. The politions we elected. So they work for us. And they should listen to us because we basically employed them.

The last time they said it was simply because the bill wasn't explained well enough. Yes it was. I feel that even with a bill we are going to go down hill here. It's just I don't want those that barrowed more than they should've, and made the bad decisions should get a bailout.

GarfieldJL
10-03-2008, 04:31 PM
I agree. Both Obama and McCain were for the bailout bill which regretfully just passed today. I feel it's the same bill as before, but with a lot of pork and regulations added in to regulate stuff, but worded to where it really cannot be enforced. Also, it gives Polsin and the same people who did this stuff the power. The same guys on Wall Street who did the wrong things in the first place. And you wonder why congress's approval rating is so low. The majority of their constituents (us) contacting them they've ignored. The last time they said it was simply because the bill wasn't explained well enough. Yes it was. I feel that even with a bill we are going to go down hill here. It's just I don't want those that barrowed more than they should've, and made the bad decisions should get a bailout.

It was this bill or total collapse because the Democrats in the Senate went on vacation immediately after the passage of this. Also the Senate had to attach this bailout to a bill already there, otherwise they couldn't have even brought this up.

Granted President Bush could use military force to drag the Senators back kicking and screaming if need be, but that wouldn't have gone over very well.

SD Nihil
10-03-2008, 04:36 PM
It was this bill or total collapse because the Democrats in the Senate went on vacation immediately after the passage of this. Also the Senate had to attach this bailout to a bill already there, otherwise they couldn't have even brought this up.

Granted President Bush could use military force to drag the Senators back kicking and screaming if need be, but that wouldn't have gone over very well.

I believe that since this bill puts the same overall athority to the same people who messed us Wall Street that the same problems will happen again.

GarfieldJL
10-03-2008, 04:49 PM
I believe that since this bill puts the same overall athority to the same people who messed us Wall Street that the same problems will happen again.

What else could they do, you advocating President Bush to have used the Military to haul the US Senate back in.

SD Nihil
10-03-2008, 05:11 PM
What else could they do, you advocating President Bush to have used the Military to haul the US Senate back in.

I'm not advocating that about Bush. I'm simply saying whether we have a bailout bill or not I simply believe we are going to have a tough time here anyway. And the last thing I want to do is give Wall Street a bailout when they and others caused this mess in the first place. And this bill gives those who did this mess in the first place the power overall.

So yeah I agree with the majority who called their congressmen and said don't pass this bill. Sadly they passed it. And I think Bush is going along with the bill to get himself out of the hot seat for the overspending he was responsible for too.

GarfieldJL
10-03-2008, 05:18 PM
Some sources that talk about Obama and ACORN:
http://www.thebulletin.us/site/news.cfm?newsid=20143051&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=623508&rfi=6


http://texasholdemblogger.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/acorn-caught-cheating-in-michigan/

And Obama is paying ACORN?!?!?


http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/archive/s_584829.html

Granted I'm having to use a lot of letters to the Editor and what not, but most news outlets are actively supporting Obama.

SD Nihil
10-03-2008, 05:34 PM
Some sources that talk about Obama and ACORN:
http://www.thebulletin.us/site/news.cfm?newsid=20143051&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=623508&rfi=6


http://texasholdemblogger.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/acorn-caught-cheating-in-michigan/

And Obama is paying ACORN?!?!?


http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/archive/s_584829.html

Granted I'm having to use a lot of letters to the Editor and what not, but most news outlets are actively supporting Obama.

And that's another reason why I believe the majority of the drive by media is pro Obama.

Det. Bart Lasiter
10-03-2008, 06:08 PM
Also wasn't Obama supposed to be a new kind of politician, by your statement, he's just more of the same.Woah there pal, I like to split my scumbag politicians into groups, like a big scummy rainbow stretching from one end of the country to the other.

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 09:31 AM
Woah there pal, I like to split my scumbag politicians into groups, like a big scummy rainbow stretching from one end of the country to the other.

Well what I've pointed out thus far is the tip of the iceberg, he's represented them in voter fraud cases.

He's also planned out some of their other activities.

Anyways Obama's even lied about working for ACORN.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-claims-he-never-worked-for-acorn

mimartin
10-06-2008, 12:23 PM
Well what I've pointed out thus far is the tip of the iceberg, he's represented them in voter fraud cases. Stretching the truth?

Obama was one of the lawyers who represented ACORN in a suit against the state of Illinois. This was not a criminal case and voter fraud is a criminal case.

ACORN first case of voter fraud happened in 2004, please explain to me how Obama represented ACORN when by the time the case got to court he was and United States Senator.

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 12:36 PM
Stretching the truth?

Obama was one of the lawyers who represented ACORN in a suit against the state of Illinois. This was not a criminal case and voter fraud is a criminal case.


Wasn't that a situation of Illinois was about to take dead people and people that had moved out of state off the voter lists?

Or was it the one that caused this current mess involving sub-prime mortgages?


ACORN first case of voter fraud happened in 2004, please explain to me how Obama represented ACORN when by the time the case got to court he was and United States Senator.

The first case of them getting actually caught that you know of I think there were some other cases before that I can look around, anyways...

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/surprise-acorn-busted-in-michigan-voter.html

mimartin
10-06-2008, 12:53 PM
Wasn't that a situation of Illinois was about to take dead people and people that had moved out of state off the voter lists? No it was what the Republican's consider holy un-American allowing everyone eligible the right to vote.
Or was it the one that caused this current mess involving sub-prime mortgages? Confusion. McCain was the one that voted to deregulate the banking industry. Even after voting to deregulate the Saving and Loans industry that lead to our last major banking bailout.

A few loans in the Chicago or even the state of Illinois does not add up to 750 billion dollars.

The first case of them getting actually caught that you know of I think there were some other cases before that I can look around, anyways... For there to be a case in which Obama represented them, then by the very definition they would have had to get caught first. Criminal Case - A lawsuit brought by a prosecutor employed by the federal, state or local government that charges a person with the commission of a crime.

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 01:04 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_597487

Also ties YouTube financially to Obama's campaign since YouTube is owned by Time Warner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5z9lD4C2Io&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_313445

No it was what the Republican's consider holy un-American allowing everyone eligible the right to vote.

I don't consider someone whom died in the Civil War to be eligible to vote.

Confusion. McCain was the one that voted to deregulate the banking industry. Even after voting to deregulate the Saving and Loans industry that lead to our last major banking bailout.

If you believe that the suit involving Obama lead to this mess, then you must be a Republican member of the House of Representatives and have no true understanding of the scope of this mess. A few loans in the Chicago or even the state of Illinois does not add up to 750 billion dollars.


Watch the videos and it tells you who caused this mess.

For there to be a case in which Obama to represent them, then by the very definition they would have had to get caught first.

Blocking them from taking dead people off voter registration is supporting them.

And as far as voting for the Deregulation, Senator McCain wasn't present for the vote. So he couldn't have voted yes.

Rogue Nine
10-06-2008, 01:09 PM
Also ties YouTube financially to Obama's campaign since YouTube is owned by Time Warner.
YouTube is owned by Google, kthnx.

Watch the videos and it tells you who caused this mess.
Watching obviously biased videos will really change people's minds. Right. :rolleyes:

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 01:11 PM
YouTube is owned by Google, kthnx.

And who owns google?



Watching obviously biased videos will really change people's minds. Right. :rolleyes:

Just watch them, because it shows you where to find the sources, heck even I've been posting up the Senate Bills these Videos are talking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63siCHvuGFg&NR=1

"For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac... and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market... the GSE's need to be reformed without delay." -- Senator John McCain (R-AZ) Senate Floor on May 25, 2006.

Rogue Nine
10-06-2008, 01:16 PM
And who owns google?
Google owns Google. Time Warner does not. If you read that TW does own Google, I'd have to wonder about the veracity of your sources. :rolleyes:

Just watch them, because it shows you where to find the sources, heck even I've been posting up the Senate Bills these Videos are talking about.
And these 'sources' aren't biased or haven't had any conservative 'spin' put on them. Sure.

mimartin
10-06-2008, 01:22 PM
Watch the videos and it tells you who caused this mess. I have a little education in the field of Finance and Accounting. I actually don't need to watch a video to tell me what caused this problem. :xp: I read information and then come to my own conclusion based on facts not bias speculation and exaggerations.

I'm not comfortable continuing this discussion in this thread as there is already a thread to discuss the bailout.

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 02:22 PM
Google owns Google. Time Warner does not. If you read that TW does own Google, I'd have to wonder about the veracity of your sources. :rolleyes:


That part was my bad, I just remember the given reason that the web vids were taken down. Long story, but the vids never said youtube was owned by Time Warner. Just pointed out a link to why the vid kept being taken down.

More of a blah mistake on my part, thanks for pointing that out, where I'm typing faster than thinking, happens once in a while when in several debates at once.


And these 'sources' aren't biased or haven't had any conservative 'spin' put on them. Sure.

Not saying they don't but by the same token you can listen to the actual people saying things and most of the media gives a liberal 'spin' remember the mainstream press is actually trying to cover up Obama's connection to ACORN.

Web Rider
10-06-2008, 02:35 PM
Not saying they don't but by the same token you can listen to the actual people saying things and most of the media gives a liberal 'spin' remember the mainstream press is actually trying to cover up Obama's connection to ACORN.

Well, I don't read a lot of mainstream press(I don't like TV news much), and they're not talking about it either.

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 02:40 PM
Well, I don't read a lot of mainstream press(I don't like TV news much), and they're not talking about it either.

Thing is the left-wing sources don't want people to know about this, they are in the tank for Obama and are actively trying to get him elected.

Quite frankly, if the truth came out, his campaign would be finished.


http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/08/21/obama-corruption-money-laundering-acorn-fec-rules-no-quarter-usa-money-laundering-scandal-acorn-voter-fraud/

Rogue Nine
10-06-2008, 03:08 PM
That part was my bad, I just remember the given reason that the web vids were taken down. Long story, but the vids never said youtube was owned by Time Warner. Just pointed out a link to why the vid kept being taken down.

More of a blah mistake on my part, thanks for pointing that out, where I'm typing faster than thinking, happens once in a while when in several debates at once.
Glad you realize that you need to slow down and make sure what you read is factual rather than some smear. :p

Not saying they don't but by the same token you can listen to the actual people saying things and most of the media gives a liberal 'spin' remember the mainstream press is actually trying to cover up Obama's connection to ACORN.
Or maybe they know better enough not to pay attention to it because it's not that big an issue?

Thing is the left-wing sources don't want people to know about this, they are in the tank for Obama and are actively trying to get him elected.
And the right-wing sources you paste all over this forum aren't in the tank for McCain and actively trying to smear Obama so that McCain gets elected? Please.

Quite frankly, if the truth came out, his campaign would be finished.


http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/08/21/obama-corruption-money-laundering-acorn-fec-rules-no-quarter-usa-money-laundering-scandal-acorn-voter-fraud/
Do you ever post sources that aren't completely and utterly biased?

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 03:14 PM
Glad you realize that you need to slow down and make sure what you read is factual rather than some smear. :p


No that error was mine not the source.


Or maybe they know better enough not to pay attention to it because it's not that big an issue?


Since it took as long as it did to even get the superficial stuff on his relationship to Bill Ayers, I highly doubt it isn't a big issue.


And the right-wing sources you paste all over this forum aren't in the tank for McCain and actively trying to smear Obama so that McCain gets elected? Please.


They source their sources though, the videos will show searches you can do on google yourself.


Do you ever post sources that aren't completely and utterly biased?

Since I posted the actual full text of bills that Obama has voted on, so I have posted unbiased sources. There is next to no source out there that isn't biased anymore. Most sources are in the tank for Obama though.

Rogue Nine
10-06-2008, 03:27 PM
No that error was mine not the source.
Yes, and I was suggesting that you need to slow down and read stuff carefully before spouting your mouth off.

Since it took as long as it did to even get the superficial stuff on his relationship to Bill Ayers, I highly doubt it isn't a big issue.
Makes sense that a conservative news source would get to it first, in any case. And they're addressing it now because of the smear tactics of the Republican campaign.

They source their sources though, the videos will show searches you can do on google yourself.
Yes, I see the sources. And I can see for myself the ridiculous spin that the videos put on them.

Since I posted the actual full text of bills that Obama has voted on, so I have posted unbiased sources.
Oh good, so you admit all the other sources you've posted are biased as hell.

There is next to no source out there that isn't biased anymore. Most sources are in the tank for Obama though.
News flash: Just because a source publishes a story that debunks a Republican claim does not mean they are 'in the tank for Obama'. You'll need more proof than that.

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 04:16 PM
Yes, and I was suggesting that you need to slow down and read stuff carefully before spouting your mouth off.


I read things through, I'll take your suggestion to heart, and would suggest you read and listen to the sources I've provided before making judgements though.


Makes sense that a conservative news source would get to it first, in any case. And they're addressing it now because of the smear tactics of the Republican campaign.


And it took over a year for even the basic information to come out? Remember Fox News was the one that broke the Reverand Wright situation, you don't think it's important that the potential President has a pastor for 20 years that hates this country, and is a racist?

If it were a Republican with a pastor that hated blacks, it'd be all over the media and you'd be calling for his head.


Yes, I see the sources. And I can see for myself the ridiculous spin that the videos put on them.


Well people were saying Sean Hannity had gone off the deep end too, but now more and more stuff has come out that has proved Sean was right all along. My parents didn't believe this stuff at first until they did their own research and discovered that Sean was telling the truth.


Oh good, so you admit all the other sources you've posted are biased as hell.


Hey, I admit my sources have conservative leanings, but that doesn't mean that they aren't telling the truth.

They are actually less biased than CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, and ABC though. Right now Rush Limbaugh (whom I often think is way out there) in my opinion is a more reputable source than they are.


News flash: Just because a source publishes a story that debunks a Republican claim does not mean they are 'in the tank for Obama'. You'll need more proof than that.

How about the New York Times article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html
Btw, this article was on the front page of the NY Times, and was later proven to be completely bogus and having no remotely credible source.

http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjZhMzkyYzBiYTZhMDQ3MmMzODk3OTRiZGJiMjk2YmU=

http://www.mrc.org/worst/2008/20080812.asp

The National Enquirer has better sources than what the New York Times article did, yet the New York Times refused to touch the Edward's affair.

mimartin
10-06-2008, 04:31 PM
Right now Rush Limbaugh (whom I often think is way out there) in my opinion is a more reputable source than they are.:lol: Known association with illegal prescription drug abuser. :xp:

Now if I want to know about the side effects of Oxycodone or Hydrocodone Iíll listen to Limbaugh. :xp:

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 04:36 PM
:lol: Known association with illegal prescription drug abuser. :xp:

Now if I want to know about the side effects of Oxycodone or Hydrocodone Iíll listen to Limbaugh. :xp:

Uh huh, so my listening to Rush Limbaugh occasionally on the radio normally just for entertainment, is somehow worse than being associated with a terrorist on a personal level or training employees of a radical left wing organization?

Inyri
10-06-2008, 04:37 PM
Uh huh, so my listening to Rush Limbaugh occasionally on the radio normally just for entertainment, is somehow worse than being associated with a terrorist on a personal level or training employees of a radical left wing organization?Guilty by association. Isn't that what you're suggesting of Obama? :)

Rogue Nine
10-06-2008, 04:43 PM
And it took over a year for even the basic information to come out?
Because it didn't seem all that important at the time? Ayers is currently a respected professor at a university and his contact with Obama was incidental at best. Hardly a cause for alarm.

Remember Fox News was the one that broke the Reverand Wright situation,
Fox News has done a lot of things that are ridiculously conservative.

you don't think it's important that the potential President has a pastor for 20 years that hates this country, and is a racist?
Not if said potential President is not a racist himself. Religious affiliations mean little to me.

If it were a Republican with a pastor that hated blacks, it'd be all over the media and you'd be calling for his head.
I wouldn't; as I've said, religious affiliations don't concern me. And as I said before, if the nominee himself is not a racist, then I fail to see the problem.

Well people were saying Sean Hannity had gone off the deep end too, but now more and more stuff has come out that has proved Sean was right all along. My parents didn't believe this stuff at first until they did their own research and discovered that Sean was telling the truth.
I don't follow Sean Hannity, you'll have to indulge me as to what he's doing because your statements make no sense to me without context. And that still doesn't explain why the videos need to be so blatantly biased.

Hey, I admit my sources have conservative leanings, but that doesn't mean that they aren't telling the truth.
It means they're distorting the truth to fit their conservative leanings.

They are actually less biased than CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, and ABC though.
I'd like some objective, unbiased, un-spun proof of this, please.

How about the New York Times article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html
Btw, this article was on the front page of the NY Times, and was later proven to be completely bogus and having no remotely credible source.
What, major publications aren't allowed to screw up now and again? How about I list the ways Fox News has screwed up? I'll guarantee you it's a lot more than the Times has.

http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjZhMzkyYzBiYTZhMDQ3MmMzODk3OTRiZGJiMjk2YmU=

http://www.mrc.org/worst/2008/20080812.asp

The National Enquirer has better sources than what the New York Times article did, yet the New York Times refused to touch the Edward's affair.
The Enquirer also pays their sources, which isn't really a very sound journalistic tactic.

And again with the biased sources. Do you ever read anything that doesn't put a ridiculous conservative spin on things?

Corinthian
10-06-2008, 05:10 PM
I'm reasonably certain guilt by association doesn't apply to abuse of prescription drugs. On the other hand, I'm reasonably certain it does apply to High Treason, which is what he's accusing Obama of.

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 05:52 PM
I'm reasonably certain guilt by association doesn't apply to abuse of prescription drugs. On the other hand, I'm reasonably certain it does apply to High Treason, which is what he's accusing Obama of.

That's a little overboard, but the idea someone knowingly associating with terrorists (cause there is more than just Bill Ayers), is a big difference from listening to someone occasionally on the radio. Heck I've never even met Rush Limbaugh, whereas Obama has had dinner over at Ayers' house.

mimartin
10-06-2008, 07:15 PM
Obama has had dinner over at Ayers' house.
I'm sure the pot roast was plans to a nuclear bomb.


Judgment is judgment. While I don’t believe being friendly or listening to someone automatically makes someone guilty by association, stating that someone is guilty because they broke bread with them, or listen to their views, worked for a company or were friends with them is absurd. Just because Obama ate with Bill Avers, listen to Jeremiah Wright or worked at ACORN does not make him guilty of anything. After all I’m reading a lot of post here, but that does not mean I agree with any of them. It is what Obama believes that is important, not what Wright, Avers or Acorn believes.

Just because you listen to another point of view does not mean you agree with it, it just means you are polite. Jesus broke bread with sinners, so why can’t we all?

Corinthian
10-06-2008, 07:29 PM
I'm having flashbacks to Steve Cohen comparing Obama to Jesus.

Q
10-06-2008, 07:31 PM
Jesus broke bread with sinners, so why canít we all?
IIRC, Jesus broke bread with repentant sinners, mimartin. Bill Ayers doesn't seem very repentant to me.

mimartin
10-06-2008, 09:01 PM
IIRC, Jesus broke bread with repentant sinners, mimartin. Bill Ayers doesn't seem very repentant to me.

I thought Jesus was the one that got them to repent. Sounds kind of silly for Jesus only to deal with the repentant.

How can you change someoneís mind if you do not have an open dialogue?

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 09:30 PM
I thought Jesus was the one that got them to repent. Sounds kind of silly for Jesus only to deal with the repentant.

How can you change someoneís mind if you do not have an open dialogue?

Jesus got them to repent, he didn't help them teach young people hate, so there is no comparison to Jesus.

mimartin
10-06-2008, 09:32 PM
Jesus got them to repent, he didn't help them teach young people hate, so there is no comparison to Jesus.
:confused:
What are you talking about? I not comparing anyone to Jesus.


I am just saying it is not a sin to asssociate with sinners.

By the way, Obama is not teaching young people to hate either.

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 09:36 PM
:confused:
What are you talking about? I not comparing anyone to Jesus.


I am just saying it is not a sin to asssociate with sinners.

By the way, Obama is not teaching young people to hate either.

He was the one diverting funds to them from a Foundation that was supposedly for Education.

Achilles
10-10-2008, 03:26 PM
Here's (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/223436.php) another take on the whole ACORN thing. It's from a blog to take it with a grain of salt, however the article is well-sourced which should lend it more credibility than many of the other links provided thus far in this thread (which contain accusation and supposition and nothing more).

I hope you find it useful.

GarfieldJL
10-13-2008, 08:51 PM
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/2008/view.bg?articleid=1124865&srvc=home&position=emailed

You mean this ACORN group that's under investigation by the FBI?

Achilles
10-13-2008, 09:05 PM
Headline: "Voter fraud charge dogging lefty group"

Yup, no bias here at all. :rolleyes:

KinchyB
10-13-2008, 09:48 PM
You mean this ACORN group that's under investigation by the FBI?

And lets not forget this group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five) the FBI Investigated too. Some people just try to manipulate the system...you know?

Yar-El
10-14-2008, 12:46 AM
And lets not forget this group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five) the FBI Investigated too. Some people just try to manipulate the system...you know?

Senators John Glenn and John McCain were cleared of having acted improperly but were criticized for having exercised "poor judgment". Thats all I need to know. McCain exercised poor judgement, and Obama will be guilty of stealing an election.

Astor
10-14-2008, 03:50 AM
and Obama will be guilty of stealing an election.

Seeing as there's been no decision yet, it's a bit premature to be assuming that, don't you think?

Yar-El
10-14-2008, 09:47 AM
Seeing as there's been no decision yet, it's a bit premature to be assuming that, don't you think? Yeah, you may be right. See my signature though.

Jae Onasi
10-14-2008, 05:37 PM
Seeing as there's been no decision yet, it's a bit premature to be assuming that, don't you think?
No, it's not. ACORN staff are under investigation for voter registration fraud in WI and other states. It's not the association that Obama has that disturbs me--there's nothing tying him directly to any kind of registration fraud and he's come out against voter fraud (although it probably would be political suicide if he didn't come out against fraud).

What disturbs me is what happens if the race is close in states where ACORN fraud has been particularly bad, and those states have an impact on who wins. If the vote is very close in WI and our electoral vote make a diffeence in who wins, I'm concerned we could end up like FL in the 2000 election. I have no doubt that the election findings will be challenged legally in WI and other states where ACORN and similar organizations are active if the vote is close. If neither man wins enough votes to win decisively, we won't have just one contested state, we'll have upwards of 10 or more contested states. Obama's association with ACORN will be dwarfed by what could happen if the race is doesn't have a clear winner. It will be a losing proposition for whoever won--McCain would be accused of pulling another Bush 2000 vote, and Obama would be under a cloud of ACORN suspicion.

Unfortunately, I think we've only just begun to uncover the extent of the fraud.

Yar-El
10-14-2008, 06:17 PM
Wallstreet Journal: WSJ: Oct. 14th: Obama & ACORN (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122394051071230749.html?mod=special_page_campaig n2008_mostpop)

Fresh off the press:
Which brings us to Mr. Obama, who got his start as a Chicago "community organizer" at Acorn's side. In 1992 he led voter registration efforts as the director of Project Vote, which included Acorn. This past November, he lauded Acorn's leaders for being "smack dab in the middle" of that effort. Mr. Obama also served as a lawyer for Acorn in 1995, in a case against Illinois to increase access to the polls.

During his tenure on the board of Chicago's Woods Fund, that body funneled more than $200,000 to Acorn. More recently, the Obama campaign paid $832,000 to an Acorn affiliate. The campaign initially told the Federal Election Commission this money was for "staging, sound, lighting." It later admitted the cash was to get out the vote.

The Obama campaign is now distancing itself from Acorn, claiming Mr. Obama never organized with it and has nothing to do with illegal voter registration. Yet it's disingenuous to channel cash into an operation with a history of fraud and then claim you're shocked to discover reports of fraud. As with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers, Mr. Obama was happy to associate with Acorn when it suited his purposes. But now that he's on the brink of the Presidency, he wants to disavow his ties.

jrrtoken
10-14-2008, 07:02 PM
Wallstreet Journal: WSJ: Oct. 14th: Obama & ACORN (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122394051071230749.html?mod=special_page_campaig n2008_mostpop)Don't listen to The Wall Street Journal. It's way out there in right field, if you know what I mean. Not to mention that it's owned Rupert Murdoch, the media tycoon of the world.

Yar-El
10-14-2008, 07:15 PM
What is the problem with Wall Street Journal? I have always followed their news.

jrrtoken
10-14-2008, 07:58 PM
What is the problem with Wall Street Journal? I have always followed their news.Other than the Editorial section being awfully right wing sometimes, they've also been shown to be inaccurate on several occasions.

http://www.fair.org/extra/9509/wsj.html
http://backissues.cjrarchives.org/year/96/4/wsj.asp

Q
10-14-2008, 08:00 PM
It's evil right-wing propaganda, as opposed to benevolent left-wing propaganda. :roleyess:

Det. Bart Lasiter
10-14-2008, 08:39 PM
It's evil right-wing propaganda, as opposed to benevolent left-wing propaganda. :roleyess:Replace "right wing propaganda" with "'**** you, got mine' propaganda" and that's the WSJ.

Q
10-14-2008, 10:08 PM
Or "I'm alright, Jack. Keep your hands off my stack." propaganda. :p

GarfieldJL
10-15-2008, 11:29 AM
Don't listen to The Wall Street Journal. It's way out there in right field, if you know what I mean. Not to mention that it's owned Rupert Murdoch, the media tycoon of the world.

And I'm sure the outlets that get their news at the approval of George Soros and Ted Turner is any better?


Fact is, I'd believe Rupert Murdoch over Soros any day of the week, especially since Soros funds moveon.org.



Anyways Obama, has purged one of his websites to try to cover up evidence. Sean Hannity was bringing it up complete with transcripts and pointing out how Obama has been lieing about his connections with ACORN.


No, it's not. ACORN staff are under investigation for voter registration fraud in WI and other states. It's not the association that Obama has that disturbs me--there's nothing tying him directly to any kind of registration fraud and he's come out against voter fraud (although it probably would be political suicide if he didn't come out against fraud).


Try Ohio with same day voter registration, a Federal Appeals court just ruled in favor of the Republicans in a lawsuit against the Democrat Secretary of State in Ohio. She had been trying to sit on the situation, until the ACORN ballots were opened and then they could no longer be traced or investigated for fraud.

So voter fraud is going on, it isn't just registration fraud.

Even Obama says associations matter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewI1QD0QUoA

True_Avery
10-16-2008, 06:29 PM
It sucks being on the other side of a rigged election doesn't it?

I personally don't care if he did or did not try and rig the votes. Cheating can either be seen as cheating, or intelligent use of opportunity. In this case he may have been caught, showing that he at least doesn't know how to cheat well.

Is that good or bad? He (might have) got caught. The election process is about who can cheat (aka, use opportunity) to their best ability to achieve the ultimate seat of power.

He's a politician. I expect them to do things like this. Hell, its a requirement to get to the office.

Its always been about who can cheat better in politics. The strongest of the manipulators are the ones that make it into office and use their strength to manipulate the house, senate, congress, party, and the rest of the American people to do as they would like.

Not how they demand, mind you. But what they would like. We're not a dictatorship after all. The presidents power is still limited, and I don't see it being expanded much for a long while.

Does that make Obama evil? Does that make McCain evil? No, it makes them politicians and the fact they are now both on the final stretch shows they are both pretty good at manipulating the game to their benefit.

Obama slipped up, and now he's paying the price.

El Sitherino
10-21-2008, 03:18 PM
LOL.

http://lucasforums.com/picture.php?albumid=194&pictureid=2165
Maverick. (http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/707)

GarfieldJL
10-25-2008, 06:47 PM
Media coverage is kinda one-sided on this.

Example:
A further examination of these two experts however shows that Rood is downright deceitful in presenting this argument. Lorraine Minnite actually donated $250 to the Obama campaign in March of this year while David Becker is anything but the Republican that he is portrayed as in the article. In fact Mr. Becker is a former director at People for the American Way, a liberal activist group that monitors "right wing organizations" and is currently launching a campaign aimed at Fighting Back Against Right-Wing Smears of ACORN.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/terry-trippany/2008/10/17/abc-news-used-obama-contributor-expert-defense-acorn

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-vadum/2008/10/17/flash-tom-brokaw-involved-soros-funded-charity-funds-acorn

Obama is heavily connected to ACORN, plus there is the added money trail.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2008/10/15/cnn-s-jeffrey-toobin-obama-doesnt-have-affiliation-acorn

Det. Bart Lasiter
10-26-2008, 01:39 AM
Well thank god we have Newsbusters and their recursive citations to expose and combat the liberal media bias.

GarfieldJL
10-26-2008, 05:38 PM
Well thank god we have Newsbusters and their recursive citations to expose and combat the liberal media bias.

Well in all honesty if Fox News had used a McCain Campaign person as an expert for the opposing side, the Mainstream media would be all over it in a heartbeat.

ET Warrior
10-26-2008, 06:28 PM
Well in all honesty if Fox News had used a McCain Campaign person as an expert for the opposing side, the Mainstream media would be all over it in a heartbeat.
lulz (http://lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2540265&postcount=106)

Rogue Nine
10-27-2008, 06:22 PM
lolz (http://www.mdc.edu/Home/Press/rally.htm)
The rally will feature Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) as the headline speaker...

The rally in Miami is being sponsored by the New American Opportunity campaign (NAOC) in partnership with ACORN...

ET Warrior
10-27-2008, 06:47 PM
Clear evidence that John McCain is in the tank with Obama.

El Sitherino
10-27-2008, 08:29 PM
lolz (http://www.mdc.edu/Home/Press/rally.htm)

Yeah, there's some other dishy good stuff in my maverick post.

GarfieldJL
10-28-2008, 07:42 AM
lolz (http://www.mdc.edu/Home/Press/rally.htm)

So you're saying one speech at a place to try to court the minority vote is equivalent to working for them as an organizer, being their lawyer, funnelling money to them, and paying them over $800,000 this campaign for their "Get out the Vote" drive?

In 2001, when Obama was a part-time director of The Woods Fund of Chicago, it gave $75,000 to ACORN, the voter registration group now under investigation for voter fraud in 12 states.

Obama Education Group Funded Controversial Organizations in the '90s, Tax Returns Show (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/27/obamas-education-groups-funded-controversial-organiations-s-tax-returns/)