Acorn Video Fake

[Q]

Does the NRA fully represent all its member? Does any organization fully represent all its members?

Probably not, but, last I heard, the NRA is funded by the voluntary contributions of its members. If people don't want to fund them, they don't have to. Not so with ACORN, whose funding is anything but voluntary.

Seems you are trying to put a higher standard on ACORN than any other organization that gives voice to its members?

Well, since they're using my money to buy votes with promises of government handouts, which, BTW, I will also have to help pay for, and all against my will, I believe that I have a right to.

And that has to do with what? No, they should not receive money from the government for registering voters, but neither should anyone else that has participated in voter registration fraud.

But they have, they do, and, apparently, they will continue to do so; all on my dime, and I apparently have no say in it whatsoever.

The only counter discussion I’m seeing is ACORN is evil they committed voter fraud.

To be perfectly honest, I don't give a damn what they do. I just don't appreciate being pigeon-holed into footing the bill for their less-than-honorable schemes.

What does that really have to do with the fake video? Nothing, just a way to muddy up the waters.

That's funny. I could've sworn that muddying the waters was the purpose of this thread in the first place. And the video is fake, now? Not may have been fake? My, how these things progress.

 

 

For the record, though, I think that O'Keefe is crooked as hell and that the video probably is embellished and/or fake. If he's willing to commit a federal crime like a Watergate-style beak-in, then faking a video doesn't seem like too much of a stretch.

[mimartin]

And the video is fake, now? Not may have been fake? My, how these things progress.

Using the same standards that the Republicans used against Dan Rather. Actually a little higher since this did go before a DA and the video did not even hold enough water to take it to court.

 

Probably not, but, last I heard, the NRA is funded by the voluntary contributions of its members. If people don't want to fund them, they don't have to. Not so with ACORN, whose funding is anything but voluntary.[/Quote] ACORN does have contracts with the Federal Government for services provided.

ACORN And Federal Funding

Does ACORN Recieve Federal Funding?

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now does not apply for nor does it receive any federal grants.

 

ACORN has had contracts with other nonprofit organizations to perform work on projects which received federal grant support. For example, ACORN has received contracts to:

 

• Identify families eligible to receive food stamps and assist them to apply.

• Identify homeowners facing foreclosure and deliver them for housing counseling and loss mitigation services.

• Provide lead paint remediation services to households with children living in older neighborhoods.

 

The contracts that ACORN receives on these projects are for delivering specific activities, all of which are tax-exempt qualified in accordance with federal grant guidelines. No payments are received until work product has been delivered.

 

None of ACORN's contracts to perform work on projects receiving federal grant money has provided funding for voter registration. [/Quote]

 

But that they are not a Federally Funded Organization as you seem to be implying. They are funded by members and foundations, like who, the NRA!

[Q]

From the OP:

- The House of Representatives voted to eliminate Federal funding to ACORN on September 17, although both resolutions were later nullified in a federal court ruling that the measures were an unconstitutional bill of attainder.

Why is this organization getting my money?

[mimartin]

You can't figure that out of your own?

 

Congress was trying to cut funding for services rendered, which is why a judge said they could not stop the funding. Like my post and link state ACORN received money from the federal government, not directly, but they still received taxpayer money through another party. If you would had looked at the article attached the taxpayer money amounted to about 10% of ACORN’s budget. Again they were not given the money; they provided a service and were paid only after the service was rendered. If Congress wanted to stop them from receiving future moneys, then they should ban them from being involved in future contracts, not cut off paying them for work they had already done.

[True_Avery]

From the OP:

 

Why is this organization getting my money?

From what I understand, nearly all community organizations get a small amount of federal funding if they apply. In this case, helping the impoverished, poor, and poor minorities. The Federal Funding, however, is only given if these community projects are under Federal Contract.

 

Community Colleges, for example, get some federal funding to help the poor in their area, and the poor minorities in their area receive an education because they are under Contract for students gained. Many charity organizations also receive a little fed funding to help make sure they stay on their feet, since many of them are non-profit in a sense. Basically, its the philosophy that keeping community based organizations that help the poor and poor minorities in their area afloat can help keep an area on its feet, slow down crime rates, etc. Much in the same way of that the police do their work and receive federal funding, community organizations are seen as another helper.

 

For example, Well Fargo got in a whole lot of trouble roughly 5 years ago for being exposed for refusing and mistreating poor African Americans, namely in area where community organizations like ACORN didn't exist to lend aid. Helping the poor and poor minorities to vote is also need as a necessary aid, as well as things like foreclosures, bankruptcy, loss mitigation.

 

ACORN, by itself, has helped pass local living wages in in 15 cities, helped rebuild over 2,000 homes after Katrina, helped bus homeless Katrina victims in for voting in the elections, helps with school teacher unions for school funding, textbooks, helps crate charter schools, privatized most of NYC's schools, helps minorities register to vote, helps the poor get into community schools, etc.

 

The above, with nearly any organization, is opt to recieve a small amount of Federal Funding. Even so, only 10% of ACORN's yearly budget is paid for by the Federal Government with most being donation and contribution.

 

In other words:

they provided a service and were paid only after the service was rendered. If Congress wanted to stop them from receiving future moneys, then they should ban them from being involved in future contracts, not cut off paying them for work they had already done.

Essentially this. They are paid, in small amount, by services, contracts, etc from the Federal Government. Much like how Schools only receive money on their graduation rates, test scores, and how many kids they have at school very day. A public school loses roughly $300 every day a child is absent from school, for example.

 

Probably not, but, last I heard, the NRA is funded by the voluntary contributions of its members. If people don't want to fund them, they don't have to. Not so with ACORN, whose funding is anything but voluntary.

90% of Acorn's year budget is contribution from its members, with 10% being funding from the Federal Government paid on services completed. The NRA doesn't receive any Federal money because they render no contract service to the government.

 

Well, since they're using my money to buy votes with promises of government handouts, which, BTW, I will also have to help pay for, and all against my will, I believe that I have a right to.

They aren't using your money, for the most part. The money you are giving to ACORN is only given once a Federal Contract has been completed in the same sense you pay for kids to go to public school, for roads to be built, and so on. The "handouts" are services and aids primarily funded by contributions from groups like Bank of America... who pulled out of ACORN after the O'Keefe videos aired.

 

They "buy votes" by helping minorities and the poor to register. The government gives handouts just fine without ACORN.

 

But they have, they do, and, apparently, they will continue to do so; all on my dime, and I apparently have no say in it whatsoever.

Every organization that collects registrations comes up with many fraudulent registrations, many being duplicates and/or updates on someone's address, information, and so on as stated by the Election Assistance Commission. ACORN has also helped fund investigations into areas with fraudulent votes previously, and fired those whom were found.

 

They are paid only upon a successful and validated registration. Thus, contact rendered and completed by the group. Votes that are deemed bad are, usually, either mistakes, duplicates, or frauds put in for the station to receive more money than it earned. Nearly 5% of all registrations from any station are fraudulent in some manner.

 

Voter Registration, by itself, is an imperfect system rendered by imperfect stations. This is universal across the United States. However, it still needs to be done and, if you're going to be angry, be more angry that the system has a 5% to 7% failure rate than the individual stations.

 

To be perfectly honest, I don't give a damn what they do. I just don't appreciate being pigeon-holed into footing the bill for their less-than-honorable schemes.

Welcome to the United States

 

Essentially, Congress wanted to cut ACORN out of Federal Contracts. Not so much the vaguely defined "federal funding", since when it is worded like that, as it often is by misleading journalists, it almost implies they are just handed money. This is not the case. They have not been cut from government contracts yet because there is insufficient evidence they have done much wrong, and what they did do wrong is actually statistically in the range of "wrong" that every registration station suffers. It is still fraud, but the difference is, well, ACORN was unlucky enough to have a spotlight shown on its muck on a field of muck.

 

I still think the bigger problem here is that a video that was never verified managed to be placed up as news, and we bought it and, well, so did they. I'm sort of sad this thread went the "is ACORN bad or good?" route since I find it to be a dull and stale argument compared to the fact that, well, the News may not have as much News as they claim. The Banks are a billion times more corrupt than ACORN could ever hope to be regardless.

 

But, whatever, just my opinion.

[Totenkopf]

Hmm.....so ACORN is both a victim and just unlucky to be caught in unethical and possibly illegal behavior in a number of states over the course of several elections....

 

The Banks are a billion times more corrupt than ACORN could ever hope to be regardless.

 

I guess if you're talking in $$ terms. Ethically speaking, I find that rather fanciful.

 

@mimartin--iirc, it was actually GTA that called for the rigorous investigation, not me. I merely added who I think could benefit from similiar treatment....besides the banks, US Army and Halliburton of course.....oh and Ann Coultur (who I don't particularly care for myself). Balance, my friend. Balance.

[Q]

I don't like Ann Coulter, either. She's obnoxious, and in dire need of a Big Mac.

 

And topping my list of corrupt organizations that I bitterly resent being forced to subsidize: the United States Congress.

[Jae Onasi]

Where is FoxNews retraction? How many producers have been fired or force to resign? Is Hannity being forced out?

 

The only counter discussion I’m seeing is ACORN is evil they committed voter fraud. What does that really have to do with the fake video? Nothing, just a way to muddy up the waters.

If they haven't done a retraction, then they need to ASAP, and appropriate actions need to be taken, including an apology to ACORN for airing that without fact-checking. I'm not in control of their HR/PR department, however. I think Rather being forced into early retirement was a bit much when I think an apology for making a mistake would have been sufficient in his particular case, but I'm not in control of their HR/PR departments either.

 

I generally ignore Ann, she says some rather loony things at times.

 

As for the OP, Avery had IMd me about my comment 'bye Acorn, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out' awhile back in response to Acorn losing funding after that video and included the link to this thread. I responded to that comment here.

 

As for investigating fraud--I don't care if it's 10 bucks or 10 billion bucks, fraud is fraud. Bank fraud is a red herring in this case, and it's not relevant to ACORN's malfeasance.

[True_Avery]

Hmm.....so ACORN is both a victim and just unlucky to be caught in unethical and possibly illegal behavior in a number of states over the course of several elections....

Did I say victim? Point out where I said they were a victim.

 

I said they were scum in a sea of scum, but they were unlucky enough to have a spotlight put on them. They are unlucky that their voter fraud got pointed out more than, well, the average 5% voter fraud of every other station of any other group in the United States. Does that excuse them? No. Am I implying it should? No.

 

I'm saying that whining about ACORN got old over a year ago and that I'm a little more, again, interested in the possibility of media information fraud.

 

I guess if you're talking in $$ terms. Ethically speaking, I find that rather fanciful.

Was sort of trying to do a play on words there, but yeah. Ethically speaking, I think there is plenty of hyperbole going on right now on both sides of this thread.

[Totenkopf]

Never said you said that verbatim. The context of much of the content in this thread that defends ACORN is that they are basically an unfairly besmirched entity. Now, since I've already stated that I think that if Fox News has gone along with a smear or been duped that they'll have to take their knocks accordingly (and there's much more that merely 1 or 2 incidents in question), I'm not exactly sure what your beef with me is at this point. Unless it's that my attitude is kind of "so what". Media manipulation has long preceded Fox's debut on the airwaves and will outlive it as long as humanity exists. All you can do is try to pay attention and watch for it. I think that ACORN is corrupt, so I don't really care what the outcome is on this. To me it's in some ways like the Treasury going after Al Capone on tax evasion b/c that was the only way they could get him. Or perhaps a better example is cops who bend or break the law to bring down someone corrupt. You have to discipline/punish the officers, but you also punish the guilty party (not throw out any possibility of a conviction on some legal technicality---even though that is currently the legal MO). If ACORN is forced to "disappear" and rise up phoenix like in another incarnation...big deal.

[mimartin]

Bank fraud is a red herring in this case, and it's not relevant to ACORN's malfeasance.

Just as the discussion of voter registration fraud is to the subject of someone faking a video about ACORN.

[True_Avery]

Now, since I've already stated that I think that if Fox News has gone along with a smear or been duped that they'll have to take their knocks accordingly (and there's much more that merely 1 or 2 incidents in question), I'm not exactly sure what your beef with me is at this point.

I didn't mean...

 

Nevermind. At this point I don't know what I want.

[Darth Avlectus]

So not only those involved in fraudulently registering voters, but the people/supervisors but the entire origination should also “have a gutting investigation and made to therefore clean up their act before being allowed to go back into the business, just like anyone else” Is that what you are writing? Because it seems to be what your implying.

 

Sorry. I'd have thought you'd be more familiar with construction metaphors: To "gut" is to more or less clear out the undesirable and leave the frame (and any other things desirable) intact. (Are you meaning to say you have never in your life gutted a house for remodel?! )

 

So in essence I'm merely echoing excising the corrupt and being allowed back in AFTER and only after that. I guess I should have used terms you are more familiar with, like audit.

 

Albeit I have quite some cynicism, yes.

 

Other than Ann Coulter, what do any of my examples have to do with Republicans or Democrats?

Well, they were your examples.

 

I’m saying you are giving ACORN a harder time than you are Ann Coulter (for the same offense) because there is no FAKE VIDEO depicting Ann Coulter as helping underage prostitution, so there was no non-stop coverage all over the web and FoxNews stating how evil and corrupt Ann Coulter allegedly is for months on end.

 

For one I don't even watch or listen to Ann Coulter.

 

Number two, I have no problem with eviscerating all the guilty in this. Or anyone else for that b/c we all have some lack of innocence in some way or another, but I digress: It would be wrong of me to defend her slander and it really discredits her side.

 

At second glance I suppose since she has constructive lines of debate with Al Sharpton, evisceration might do more harm than good...So I guess you have a point. Your point succeeds...for now.

 

While I do agree with WebRider up to a point, I however believe 1). Those not involved in corrupt behavior don’t need to change. Not everyone that was involved with ACORN was corrupt.

That's what I meant with the gutting investigation. Once a thorough check is done and the error is corrected, fine.

2.) I also disagree that people cannot change. I just believe for change to happen it must be their decision and not something that can be forced upon them.

Oh you're completely right there, but Web's point still stands about its outward appearance as an entity towards the public in general.

 

Forgive my philosophy (AGAIN ): Friendship and reputation are as glass as they function, but abuse will fracture it. Though fractured, it still can function if not hit too hard, but the damage will always be there. Abuse it again and it will inevitably shatter.

 

So essentially ACORN (even regardless of my or any opponent's opinion) is as a whole pane of glass, but now with a fracture. We should only allow it so much more in terms of these kind of screw ups. THAT is what I'm saying.

[Totenkopf]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0310/Acorn_folds.html?showall

[True_Avery]

I'd feel better about them falling if a great deal why wasn't overblown propaganda and very suspect journalism. I would of preferred them to go down legally instead. They might be gone now, but this just goes to show the power of false journalism.

 

I wonder who gets to be the new scapegoat.

[mimartin]

I wonder who gets to be the new scapegoat.[/QUOTe] Someone else that helps the poor. Can not let those poor people get ahead in life.

[Q]

*and sad, sad violin music plays in the background*

They might be gone now, but this just goes to show the power of false journalism.

You say that as though it were a new development.

[True_Avery]

Hooray for thousands more lost jobs and the destruction of a community organization.

 

You say that as though it were a new development.

Not really, no.

[Totenkopf]

Hardly likely, TA. Much more likely that they will "rebrand" under a different name. Really not much different than a resturant or store re-opening under a new name.

[True_Avery]

Hardly likely, TA. Much more likely that they will "rebrand" under a different name. Really not much different than a resturant or store re-opening under a new name.

I dunno, even if they did re-open the main thing that caused them to fail was all their donation money went dry. Bankruptcy killed them faster than court. Even under a re-branding, I don't see anyone involved building anything remotely stable for quite a long time. They did re-brand some of their areas, but that obviously didn't stop them from folding.

[Totenkopf]

I wouldn't worry much. With the current crop running our govt, the former ACORNites will be up and running under a new name and possibly some new managers. Community organizers ain't gonna disappear just b/c one chapter has been shut down. Too big an industry. Only thing that's really changes is that the name ACORN has become too toxic for contributors, little else. Sort of like the old saying....knock one down and 10 more take their place.

[Darth Avlectus]

I dunno, even if they did re-open the main thing that caused them to fail was all their donation money went dry. Bankruptcy killed them faster than court. Even under a re-branding, I don't see anyone involved building anything remotely stable for quite a long time. They did re-brand some of their areas, but that obviously didn't stop them from folding.

 

Key word "some". You want to make a clean and stable getup, you have to (appear) for all intents and purposes be dissociated from a foundation that is tainted in the eyes of people. If it is a trust/reputation thing as implied. Money probably had a lot to do with that, yes. Insufficient greens and you can only hide so much.

 

But whatever, the people have decided.

[Ten-96]

Just a thought on the Acorn videos...if they are fake, wouldn't it be prudent to remove the videos from one's website or face legal action?

 

Andrew Breitbart still has the videos and transcripts posted prominently on his Big Government website. There's a link highlighted in blue which directs you to all of the videos, audio and transcripts from the main page. Either he's taking a big risk or he doesn't have anything to fear from Acorn. I'm going with the latter.