Front Office Football Central
Page 111 of 527 « First < 1161101102103104105106107108109110 111 112113114115116117118119120121161211 > Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)
-   Off Topic (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012 (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=69042)

flere-imsaho 09-22-2009 02:39 PM
I'd recommend using another word, then. "Steal" implies he had no business winning certain states.

You used "stole" in reference to the claim that the GOP was sliding towards becoming a regional (South/SouthEast) party. For full context:

Quote:
Let's not go crazy here. The GOP still has plenty of presence in the Midwest. Obama stole a few key states, but there's still plenty of conservatives to go around. I'd vote 'No' in that poll as well because I'm not terribly happy with the GOP right now, but that doesn't mean that I'll be voting for Obama or a Democrat for senator anytime soon. I'm not too happy with either.

I read that as an assertion that the "key states" Obama won were aberrations, and he wouldn't win them again. Depending on which states these are, and how you define "Midwest", such an assertion seems to run counter to actual electoral and demographic trends.

JPhillips 09-22-2009 04:02 PM
Looks like the anti-ACORN bill could have massive unintended consequences. From HuffPost:

Quote:
Going after ACORN may be like shooting fish in a barrel lately -- but jumpy lawmakers used a bazooka to do it last week and may have blown up some of their longtime allies in the process.

The congressional legislation intended to defund ACORN, passed with broad bipartisan support, is written so broadly that it applies to "any organization" that has been charged with breaking federal or state election laws, lobbying disclosure laws, campaign finance laws or filing fraudulent paperwork with any federal or state agency. It also applies to any of the employees, contractors or other folks affiliated with a group charged with any of those things.

In other words, the bill could plausibly defund the entire military-industrial complex. Whoops.

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) picked up on the legislative overreach and asked the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) to sift through its database to find which contractors might be caught in the ACORN net.

Lockheed Martin and Northrop Gumman both popped up quickly, with 20 fraud cases between them, and the longer list is a Who's Who of weapons manufacturers and defense contractors.

The language was written by the GOP and filed as a "motion to recommit" in the House, where it passed 345-75. It carried the Senate by an 83-7 margin.

POGO is reaching out to its members to identify other companies who have engaged in the type of misconduct that would make them ineligible for federal funds.

Grayson then intends to file that list in the legislative history that goes along with the bill so that judges can reference it when determining whether a company should be denied federal funds.

The Florida freshman is asking for direct assistance. He has set up a Google spreadsheet where people can suggest contractors who have been charged with violations and include a link to a media or government report documenting the alleged transgression.

The weapons manufacturers might have a better line of defense in court, however. Immediately after the bill passed, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), a constitutional whiz, noted that the measure appeared to be a "bill of attainder" -- specifically targeting a company or organization or individual -- and is therefore specifically barred by the Constitution. If it's not targeted at one group, then Northrop Grumman is in trouble.

Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Barney Frank (D-Mass.) sent a letter to the Congressional Research Service on Tuesday asking it to clarify, among other things, if the Defund ACORN Act is constitutional.

DaddyTorgo 09-22-2009 04:04 PM
that's pretty funny. accorn does need to be defunded but yeah umm...don't defund lockheed plzkthnx

sterlingice 09-22-2009 06:22 PM
Which begs the question- if they're defrauding the government, how do they keep getting contracts?

SI

Flasch186 09-22-2009 07:11 PM
Um, they did more than screw up Steve. They were unethical, immoral and criminal.

Greyroofoo 09-22-2009 07:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2124649)
Blackwater is literally electrocuting soliders in Iraq due to faulty work and they continue to get contacts unfortunately. If you're part of the military-industrial complex, you can do literally anything and still get work.

But, on the other hand, if you're an organization that helps out the poor and working class and have two workers screw up, ya' lose your federal funding.

Well the US Government, you know that entity that relies on taxes, doesn't like funding organizations that advises people how to evade taxes. What a shocker.

Yeah that bill mentioned above is just that, a bill.

JPhillips 09-22-2009 09:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyroofoo (Post 2124660)
Well the US Government, you know that entity that relies on taxes, doesn't like funding organizations that advises people how to evade taxes. What a shocker.

Yeah that bill mentioned above is just that, a bill.

I don't know what you mean by the last part. Yes, it's still a bill, but it's already been passed by both houses of Congress and is awaiting a Presidential signature. I find it very unlikely that Obama will veto it as Beck and his ilk would have a field day.

It's a very good thing that someone is showing the effects of this bill before people tarted using it to defund a huge number of government contractors. At the end of the day I'm not sure you can find the right language to pull ACORN's funding without catching other contractors. They might have to wait until the next omnibus budget.

SteveMax58 09-22-2009 10:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2124493)
Looks like the anti-ACORN bill could have massive unintended consequences. From HuffPost:

Funny...as bad as the acorn tapes are coupled with the various other serious accusations against them....there is still something, in my mind anyway, called due process. Yes it's as obvious as a spree-shooter...but we still send spree-shooters to trial before we sentence them to death/life in prison. As an aside...I've often found this to be the (unfortunate) case in sports as well.

But the same thing we do for spree shooters should be done with acorn before voting on defunding measures in my book. They probably should have been investigated much sooner, but that isn't the relevant point, to me.

I think this just further speaks to the ineffectiveness of these elected clowns. They haven't got an ounce of pragmatism in their bodies. They are perfectly happy to find a whipping boy like acorn where everybody can be bipartisanly against them. Acorn is probably guilty of many indefensible acts that may or may not be possible to prove. They also aren't the only one's. But their effectiveness to swindle people (i.e. taxpayers) is only possible due to there even "being" a governmental arm. They aren't (as) likely to do this to a private enterprise. Ugh...I'll just stop my rant there.

Is it a wonder why many don't want these same idiots to be responsible for more?

Grammaticus 09-22-2009 10:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveMax58 (Post 2124870)
Funny...as bad as the acorn tapes are coupled with the various other serious accusations against them....there is still something, in my mind anyway, called due process. Yes it's as obvious as a spree-shooter...but we still send spree-shooters to trial before we sentence them to death/life in prison. As an aside...I've often found this to be the (unfortunate) case in sports as well.

But the same thing we do for spree shooters should be done with acorn before voting on defunding measures in my book. They probably should have been investigated much sooner, but that isn't the relevant point, to me.

I think this just further speaks to the ineffectiveness of these elected clowns. They haven't got an ounce of pragmatism in their bodies. They are perfectly happy to find a whipping boy like acorn where everybody can be bipartisanly against them. Acorn is probably guilty of many indefensible acts that may or may not be possible to prove. They also aren't the only one's. But their effectiveness to swindle people (i.e. taxpayers) is only possible due to there even "being" a governmental arm. They aren't (as) likely to do this to a private enterprise. Ugh...I'll just stop my rant there.

Is it a wonder why many don't want these same idiots to be responsible for more?

If anyone in the Obama administration actually has the balls to prosecute these ACORN criminals caught in the act, then they will get due process.

I'm sure Eric Holder will just pull up his panties and keep everyone in his branch away from it.

DaddyTorgo 09-22-2009 11:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2124914)
I'm not getting into this, because it's obvious the storyline of ACORN as the worst organization in the history of the world has become solidified in people's minds, but a few small things.

1. There are 1,200 chapters of ACORN. There are four videos out there. . Four videos were being promoted as unimpeachable proof that all of ACORN is equally corrupt -- all 1,200 chapters and hundreds of ACORN employees. Including treating an obviously outlandish statement by an ACORN employee about killing their husband as if it was the gospel truth.

2. These conservative activists went to multiple ACORN offices and got basically kicked and thrown out of ACORN offices. Not shown on those videos.

3. This is what the "pimp" and "prostitute" looked like.



Yeah.

He looks like a goddamn frat boy. Seriously, he’s even got that stupid-ass Young Republican blue shirt/white collar thing going. All he did was add his “going to the bars” sunglasses, a 15$ target hat, and a borrowed or goodwilled fur coat. I've seen better 'pimp' outfits at party.

If he really wanted to sell it (and, incidentally, be an even bigger racist jackass), he would have at least gone to a tailor in a black neighborhood and bought a real “pimp suit” (i.e. a well-fitted suit, sometimes in bright colors, worn to any number of occasions*).

As for the girl, she is wearing her “going to the bars” clothes. Swing a dead cat at any college or quasi-trendy bar and you will hit someone dressed more or less like her.

To be blunt, I’m going for either “trying not to offend the crazy person” or “oh, look, white kids who think they’re funny, how can I best get them out of here” on the videos.

4. Finally, one of the fired ACORN employees, despite the way these guys looked - shock! - actually called the cops.

TCPalm : Treasure Coast, Palm Beach, News Business, Homes, Jobs, Cars, & Information



5. Finally, I can only hope that all of those slamming ACORN in this thread also think Catholic Charities should get the $100 million dollars in grants over the next five years they got in the last budget.

After all, there's a case in Albany, NY, where Catholic Charities funds were used as part of a settlement on a case of molestation by clergy. In Cleveland in 2002, at a child care center supported by Catholic Charities, five workers were arrested on charges of sexual abuse of children.

The number of cases of molestation by workers, of the cloth or not, at Catholic Charities-run or -owned facilities could go on and on and on, as the abuse did for years. Where's the story on the network news about this?

With that, I'm done. I have no doubt ACORN has done some stupid things. But, the idea they among all non-profits deserve to be attacked as the embodiment of evil that needs to be destroyed is kind of silly.

for sure i think Catholic Charities should be stripped!

oh yeah, and if that's the "pimp" and the "prostitute" i'm LOL and guessing all the advice given to them was tongue-in-cheek (which isn't to say that the people shouldn't have had better sense than to give it, but they look hard to take seriously)

Flasch186 09-23-2009 06:22 AM
I havnt found the part yet where Steve said that those 4 employees were immoral, unethical and criminal. Can someone point me to it?

panerd 09-23-2009 06:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2124914)
I'm not getting into this, because it's obvious the storyline of ACORN as the worst organization in the history of the world has become solidified in people's minds, but a few small things.

1. There are 1,200 chapters of ACORN. There are four videos out there. . Four videos were being promoted as unimpeachable proof that all of ACORN is equally corrupt -- all 1,200 chapters and hundreds of ACORN employees. Including treating an obviously outlandish statement by an ACORN employee about killing their husband as if it was the gospel truth.

2. These conservative activists went to multiple ACORN offices and got basically kicked and thrown out of ACORN offices. Not shown on those videos.

3. This is what the "pimp" and "prostitute" looked like.



Yeah.

He looks like a goddamn frat boy. Seriously, he’s even got that stupid-ass Young Republican blue shirt/white collar thing going. All he did was add his “going to the bars” sunglasses, a 15$ target hat, and a borrowed or goodwilled fur coat. I've seen better 'pimp' outfits at party.

If he really wanted to sell it (and, incidentally, be an even bigger racist jackass), he would have at least gone to a tailor in a black neighborhood and bought a real “pimp suit” (i.e. a well-fitted suit, sometimes in bright colors, worn to any number of occasions*).

As for the girl, she is wearing her “going to the bars” clothes. Swing a dead cat at any college or quasi-trendy bar and you will hit someone dressed more or less like her.

To be blunt, I’m going for either “trying not to offend the crazy person” or “oh, look, white kids who think they’re funny, how can I best get them out of here” on the videos.

4. Finally, one of the fired ACORN employees, despite the way these guys looked - shock! - actually called the cops.

TCPalm : Treasure Coast, Palm Beach, News Business, Homes, Jobs, Cars, & Information



5. Finally, I can only hope that all of those slamming ACORN in this thread also think Catholic Charities should get the $100 million dollars in grants over the next five years they got in the last budget.

After all, there's a case in Albany, NY, where Catholic Charities funds were used as part of a settlement on a case of molestation by clergy. In Cleveland in 2002, at a child care center supported by Catholic Charities, five workers were arrested on charges of sexual abuse of children.

The number of cases of molestation by workers, of the cloth or not, at Catholic Charities-run or -owned facilities could go on and on and on, as the abuse did for years. Where's the story on the network news about this?

With that, I'm done. I have no doubt ACORN has done some stupid things. But, the idea they among all non-profits deserve to be attacked as the embodiment of evil that needs to be destroyed is kind of silly.

More talking points from pandagon please. LOL.

Ronnie Dobbs2 09-23-2009 06:40 AM
The saddest part of the whole thing was the "goddamn frat boy" did more investigative journalism of ACORN than the national media.

edit: Granted, they couldn't use the same tactics per se, but the flagrance of the workers in those videos makes me think that there would be other ways to get this story.

Mizzou B-ball fan 09-23-2009 07:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2124914)
I'm not getting into this, because it's obvious the storyline of ACORN as the worst organization in the history of the world has become solidified in people's minds, but a few small things.

1. There are 1,200 chapters of ACORN. There are four videos out there. . Four videos were being promoted as unimpeachable proof that all of ACORN is equally corrupt -- all 1,200 chapters and hundreds of ACORN employees. Including treating an obviously outlandish statement by an ACORN employee about killing their husband as if it was the gospel truth.

2. These conservative activists went to multiple ACORN offices and got basically kicked and thrown out of ACORN offices. Not shown on those videos.

3. This is what the "pimp" and "prostitute" looked like.



Yeah.

He looks like a goddamn frat boy. Seriously, he’s even got that stupid-ass Young Republican blue shirt/white collar thing going. All he did was add his “going to the bars” sunglasses, a 15$ target hat, and a borrowed or goodwilled fur coat. I've seen better 'pimp' outfits at party.

If he really wanted to sell it (and, incidentally, be an even bigger racist jackass), he would have at least gone to a tailor in a black neighborhood and bought a real “pimp suit” (i.e. a well-fitted suit, sometimes in bright colors, worn to any number of occasions*).

As for the girl, she is wearing her “going to the bars” clothes. Swing a dead cat at any college or quasi-trendy bar and you will hit someone dressed more or less like her.

To be blunt, I’m going for either “trying not to offend the crazy person” or “oh, look, white kids who think they’re funny, how can I best get them out of here” on the videos.

4. Finally, one of the fired ACORN employees, despite the way these guys looked - shock! - actually called the cops.

TCPalm : Treasure Coast, Palm Beach, News Business, Homes, Jobs, Cars, & Information



5. Finally, I can only hope that all of those slamming ACORN in this thread also think Catholic Charities should get the $100 million dollars in grants over the next five years they got in the last budget.

After all, there's a case in Albany, NY, where Catholic Charities funds were used as part of a settlement on a case of molestation by clergy. In Cleveland in 2002, at a child care center supported by Catholic Charities, five workers were arrested on charges of sexual abuse of children.

The number of cases of molestation by workers, of the cloth or not, at Catholic Charities-run or -owned facilities could go on and on and on, as the abuse did for years. Where's the story on the network news about this?

With that, I'm done. I have no doubt ACORN has done some stupid things. But, the idea they among all non-profits deserve to be attacked as the embodiment of evil that needs to be destroyed is kind of silly.

So you start the post by saying you're not going into this, but then post this diatribe that is borrowed from another website and posted as your own opinion.

You're a peach.

JPhillips 09-23-2009 08:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 2125008)
The saddest part of the whole thing was the "goddamn frat boy" did more investigative journalism of ACORN than the national media.

edit: Granted, they couldn't use the same tactics per se, but the flagrance of the workers in those videos makes me think that there would be other ways to get this story.

I'm not going to defend the actions of those employees, but let's not make this kid into Edward R. Murrow. He used the same sort of tactics that people have rightly complained that Michael Moore uses. I don't want journalistic outlets setting out to bring down organizations and then not telling the entirety of the story because it better fits their original goal

Mizzou B-ball fan 09-23-2009 08:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2125049)
I'm not going to defend the actions of those employees, but let's not make this kid into Edward R. Murrow. He used the same sort of tactics that people have rightly complained that Michael Moore uses. I don't want journalistic outlets setting out to bring down organizations and then not telling the entirety of the story because it better fits their original goal

I'd agree with this. Much of this could have been done through traditional means to achieve the same purpose.

Ronnie Dobbs2 09-23-2009 08:10 AM
That's my whole point - why did it take a stunt like this for this kind of stuff to come out? Or do people really think that this behavior was abnormal for ACORN? In the videos, the workers certainly looked comfortable giving out that kind of advice.

JPhillips 09-23-2009 08:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 2125057)
That's my whole point - why did it take a stunt like this for this kind of stuff to come out? Or do people really think that this behavior was abnormal for ACORN? In the videos, the workers certainly looked comfortable giving out that kind of advice.

It was abnormal by the kid's own admission. He apparently went to numerous ACORN offices before he got video he could use. Even out of the four videos that he's shown, two should be put into context and may be far less damning than they seem. He wanted to destroy ACORN and was willing to put in whatever time it took to get it done. Those ACORN employees fucked up and the organization is going to rightly take some lumps, but what the kid did shouldn't be mistaken for good journalism.

Ronnie Dobbs2 09-23-2009 08:31 AM
Again, not saying it was good journalism. And I think we are using different scales of "abnormal"; I don't think behavior like that was standard or anything, but the ease with which that advice was given makes me suspect it wasn't the first time a conversation like that was held.

flere-imsaho 09-23-2009 10:04 AM
If an unintended consequence of the bill passing is the defunding of KBR, I'm all behind it now!!! :D

Flasch186 09-23-2009 01:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2125015)
So you start the post by saying you're not going into this, but then post this diatribe that is borrowed from another website and posted as your own opinion.

You're a peach.

pot - kettle. Fuzzy and all.

albionmoonlight 09-23-2009 01:36 PM
Sounds like ACORN needs to go. As someone who believes generally in their cause--organizing unempowered individuals to make sure that they have a say in our democratic republic--I think that they are doing more harm than good.

[some pithy joke about the acorn being rotten and it is probably best just to cut down the oak instead of pruning branches]

RainMaker 09-23-2009 03:04 PM
I don't wish any ill will on ACORN or anything, and I hope the organization succeeds in whatever goals it has set out. But I am against funding them. Not necessarily for this video, but I'm just not a fan of funding these groups at all through the government. It should be done privately by people who are passionate about the cause. Just as any other organizations looking to push a cause of their own.

As it's been mentioned, a lot of questionable groups receive money. I also believe that if you went in with a hidden camera enough times, you'd find almost any large organization with some less than stellar employees. Those against ACORN have made no push to remove tax shelters for many churches who have aided and abetted pedophiles for years. What ACORN did is wrong, but I don't put it on the same level as helping priests fuck kids.

Flasch186 09-23-2009 03:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2125495)
I don't wish any ill will on ACORN or anything, and I hope the organization succeeds in whatever goals it has set out. But I am against funding them. Not necessarily for this video, but I'm just not a fan of funding these groups at all through the government. It should be done privately by people who are passionate about the cause. Just as any other organizations looking to push a cause of their own.

As it's been mentioned, a lot of questionable groups receive money. I also believe that if you went in with a hidden camera enough times, you'd find almost any large organization with some less than stellar employees. Those against ACORN have made no push to remove tax shelters for many churches who have aided and abetted pedophiles for years. What ACORN did is wrong, but I don't put it on the same level as helping priests fuck kids.

Considering all of the monies coming back from tax hideouts and such I think relying on the philanthropic or well off already to prop up all/most charity or grassroots organizations is a bad bad idea.

RainMaker 09-23-2009 03:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 2125516)
Considering all of the monies coming back from tax hideouts and such I think relying on the philanthropic or well off already to prop up all/most charity or grassroots organizations is a bad bad idea.
If it can't survive on it's own, it's a charity that doesn't have enough support. The country is in major debt and should not be throwing money around at these organizations. They also shouldn't be the ones making judgements on what is worthwhile and what isn't.

SteveMax58 09-23-2009 05:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2125495)
I don't wish any ill will on ACORN or anything, and I hope the organization succeeds in whatever goals it has set out. But I am against funding them. Not necessarily for this video, but I'm just not a fan of funding these groups at all through the government. It should be done privately by people who are passionate about the cause. Just as any other organizations looking to push a cause of their own.

As it's been mentioned, a lot of questionable groups receive money. I also believe that if you went in with a hidden camera enough times, you'd find almost any large organization with some less than stellar employees. Those against ACORN have made no push to remove tax shelters for many churches who have aided and abetted pedophiles for years. What ACORN did is wrong, but I don't put it on the same level as helping priests fuck kids.

I'm with you here. The less of these types of things being funded by our elected geniuses the less opportunity/cover for fraud that is available to organizations that do need to be funded (or paid for services, etc.).

Grammaticus 09-23-2009 06:36 PM
Looks like Acorn is suing the pimp and prostitute film duo. This is going to be awesome.

ACORN Vows 'Serious' Internal Probe, Sues Filmmakers - Political News - FOXNews.com


Quote:
ACORN Vows 'Serious' Internal Probe, Sues Filmmakers
A Boston attorney hired by ACORN to conduct an independent, internal review of its practices vowed a "no hold's barred" investigation on Wednesday into the grassroots organization.


ACORN, in response to an undercover expose of potential wrongdoing by some employees, pledged Wednesday to follow through on plans to conduct a thorough internal review of its practices -- on the same day that the organization filed a lawsuit against the filmmakers whose hidden-camera sting brought the community organization to its knees.

The lawsuit, filed in a Baltimore court, stems from an undercover video showing ACORN employees Shera Williams and Tonja Thompson providing advice to two filmmakers posing as a pimp and prostitute on how to skirt tax laws.

The filmmakers, James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, are named as defendants in the lawsuit, along with Breitbart.com, a Web site managed by conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart, which posted the videos. Breitbart released five similar videos that O'Keefe and Giles recorded in ACORN offices in Washington, D.C.; Brooklyn, N.Y.; San Bernadino, Calif., and San Diego, as well as the Baltimore office.

The videos prompted the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office to launch a criminal investigation, the U.S. Census Bureau to several ties with ACORN and ACORN to fire four of the employees shown in the videos. And on Wednesday, the Internal Revenue Service announced it also was severing ties with the organization.

The IRS said it would no longer include ACORN in its volunteer tax assistance program. The program offered free tax advice to about 3 million low- and moderate-income tax filers this spring. ACORN provided help on about 25,000 returns, the IRS said.

But ACORN says no tax returns were actually prepared at the Baltimore office, and that the audio portion of the video recorded there was obtained illegally, since Maryland requires two-party consent for sound recordings. The multimillion-dollar lawsuit cites "extreme emotional distress" on behalf of two workers who were fired after the video was posted online.

The videos were "clear violations of Maryland law that were intended to inflict maximum damage to the reputation of ACORN, the nation's largest grassroots organizer of low-income and minority Americans," said ACORN attorney Arthur Schwartz. "Unfortunately they succeeded."

At the same time, ACORN is moving forward with its pledge to review its operations. The Boston attorney hired by ACORN to conduct an independent probe of the group vowed a "no holds barred" investigation on Wednesday.

"My name is on the line and so is the name of my firm, so we will call this as we see them," Scott Harshbarger told reporters on a conference call.

Harshbarger, the former attorney general of Massachusetts now serving as senior counsel at Proskauer Rose LLP, was hired Tuesday to lead an "independent and comprehensive" internal investigation into ACORN's activities -- a decision that was met with skepticism from some members of Congress, including one lawmaker who has repeatedly called for hearings into the use of taxpayer funds.

Harshbarger said the probe had not yet begun as of Wednesday and said there was no "specific timetable" for its completion.

ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis, who joined Harshbarger on the conference call, said the organization was "very, very serious" about the review and vowed to "set things straight" following the release of five hidden-camera videos.

"We were just as shocked and horrified as the American public was," Lewis told reporters of the conduct seen on the videotapes. "I will not tolerate such behavior. It is incumbent upon me and my board to set things straight."

Lewis said ACORN officials are cooperating with law enforcement agencies, adding that no subpoenas had been received by the organization as of Wednesday.

Meanwhile, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith, R-Texas, and House Oversight and Government Reform Ranking Member Darrell Issa, R-Calif., called on the Government Accountability Office to investigate whether ACORN misused federal funds.

In a letter sent to GAO Comptroller General Gene Dodaro on Wednesday, Smith and Issa expressed concern that millions of taxpayer dollars may have been used to support criminal efforts by the organization.

"Congress cannot ignore allegations that federal funds are being used by an organization involved in criminal conduct," the letter read. "American taxpayers are rightly outraged and Congress has a responsibility to act. We need a full investigation into ACORN's use of federal funds and we need the Democratic-led Congress to put a bill on the President's desk to ensure that no future funds are received by ACORN."

The letter continued, "ACORN has a long history of ignoring federal laws. No organization with that kind of a record should benefit from American taxpayer dollars."

ACORN said on Sept. 16 it would stop any "new intakes" -- essentially closing its doors to new clients -- until it completed an internal investigation prompted by the release of five hidden-camera videos that depicted workers advising a fake pimp and prostitute to lie to get loans for a brothel.

The scandal drew criticism from the Obama administration last week as White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs called the conduct depicted on the four videos "completely unacceptable."

"The administration takes the accountability very seriously," Gibbs told reporters.

In addition to a Justice Department watchdog's probe into whether ACORN has applied for or received DOJ grant money, ACORN announced on Monday that it has suspended all 2009 tax preparation services.

FOXNews.com's Joshua Rhett Miller and Steven Clark and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

JPhillips 09-23-2009 08:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2125522)
If it can't survive on it's own, it's a charity that doesn't have enough support. The country is in major debt and should not be throwing money around at these organizations. They also shouldn't be the ones making judgements on what is worthwhile and what isn't.

It's not entirely a charity. I believe most of the money it gets from the government is for services rendered. To some degree it's just another government contractor hired to privatize government services.

Mizzou B-ball fan 09-24-2009 07:10 AM
Disappointing to see this information. Government watchdog says it's "highly unlikely" that government will recoup all money loaned out on TARP bailout deals.

Government Watchdog: 'Extremely Unlikely' Taxpayers Will Recoup TARP Money - ABC News

ISiddiqui 09-24-2009 08:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2122593)
Will the Democrats lose seats in 2010? Sure. They've probably hit the high-water mark they can in the current political and demographic climate. But, they're not going to lose the House barring some massive disaster - like failing to pass a health care reform bill.

Nate Silver, obviously a conservative, thinks its a bit closer than you think:

FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Generic House Polling Suggests the Republicans Could Regain the House in 2010

Quote:
Bafumi, Erikson, and Wlezien's analysis doesn't go back before 300 days before the election, but if we take the liberty of extrapolating . . . The current state of the generic polls gives the Democrats .412/(.412+.377) = 52% of the two-party vote. Going to the graph, we see, first, that 52% for the Democrats is near historic lows (comparable to 1946, 1994, and 1998) and that the expected Democratic vote--given that their party holds the White House--is around -3%, or a 53-47 popular vote win for the Republicans.

Would 53% of the popular vote be enough for the Republicans to win a House majority? A quick look, based on my analysis with John Kastellec and Jamie Chandler of seats and votes in Congress, suggests yes.

It's still early--and there's a lot of scatter in those scatterplots--but if the generic polls remain this close, the Republican Party looks to be in good shape in the 2010.

Ronnie Dobbs2 09-24-2009 08:55 AM
It doesn't affect any point made, but that article isn't by Nate Silver. It's by one of the other guys.

Swaggs 09-24-2009 10:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2125803)
Disappointing to see this information. Government watchdog says it's "highly unlikely" that government will recoup all money loaned out on TARP bailout deals.

Government Watchdog: 'Extremely Unlikely' Taxpayers Will Recoup TARP Money - ABC News

Only disappointing if you actually, at any point, believed that the government would would recoup all the money. The fact that they have not gone over the original $700B is a minor miracle to me.

Flasch186 09-24-2009 10:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2125803)
Disappointing to see this information. Government watchdog says it's "highly unlikely" that government will recoup all money loaned out on TARP bailout deals.

Government Watchdog: 'Extremely Unlikely' Taxpayers Will Recoup TARP Money - ABC News

I havnt seen you applauding when some of the money has come back however, hrrmmmm, that is convenient.

Mizzou B-ball fan 09-24-2009 10:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 2125929)
I havnt seen you applauding when some of the money has come back however, hrrmmmm, that is convenient.

Yea! Partial wins!

Give me a break. If the government hands out $XXX and gets back less than that amount when we were promised a break-even or profitable scenario, that's not good. Worse yet, we've now found out that many of these banks used the money for profit-making activities rather than the purpose they were specified. That makes the pill even harder to swallow.

miked 09-24-2009 10:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2125944)
Yea! Partial wins!

Give me a break. If the government hands out $XXX and gets back less than that amount when we were promised a break-even or profitable scenario, that's not good. Worse yet, we've now found out that many of these banks used the money for profit-making activities rather than the purpose they were specified. That makes the pill even harder to swallow.

What does this have to do with Obama?

Mizzou B-ball fan 09-24-2009 11:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by miked (Post 2125948)
What does this have to do with Obama?

We can't be critical of policies that were created by the Bush adminstration and the Democratic Congress (including Obama who supported TARP) in this thread?

JPhillips 09-24-2009 11:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2125966)
We can't be critical of policies that were created by the Bush adminstration and the Democratic Congress (including Obama who supported TARP) in this thread?

According to you, several times in this thread, no, we can't talk about past presidents.

Mizzou B-ball fan 09-24-2009 11:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2125971)
According to you, several times in this thread, no, we can't talk about past presidents.

I didn't say we couldn't talk about it. If it's an issue relevant to both Obama and another president, then it's certainly relevant.

I've been critical of Obama and Bush for pushing through this TARP crap before. I'm not sure why now should be any different.

Flasch186 09-24-2009 11:33 AM
its all about the MBBF Convenience rule of topic discussion and fact dropping.

Well the TARP supporters cant prove a negative so when we say that it SAVED A DEPRESSION, you will always be able to say, no it didnt, the depression never would've occurred anyways. Ahhhh, to look at things with such a spin and to be so fiscally responsible at exactly the wrong time.

yes, we should be happy that we're getting money back and the money we are getting back is coming back with profit attached AND the warrants very likely will be worth more than we got them for in 10 years (or sooner) so yes, Id say yes, MBBF, I know its not convenient to ignore the funds flowing back with % attached but yes.

JonInMiddleGA 09-24-2009 12:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 2125929)
I havnt seen you applauding when some of the money has come back however, hrrmmmm, that is convenient.

Why would anyone in their right mind celebrate a net loss?

Flasch186 09-24-2009 12:18 PM
net loss = cost to save our country...

so you weigh that. IMO the cost, or what will be the eventual cost (which could be a net gain in the long run) was well worth it thus far.

DaddyTorgo 09-24-2009 12:24 PM
no way of knowing if it's a net loss yet - the warrants haven't been exercised, or even been given time to play out in a bull market.

DaddyTorgo 09-24-2009 12:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2126047)
Why would anyone in their right mind celebrate a net loss?

perhaps because the net loss is relatively minor compared to what would have/could have (depending on how you want to view it. i'd say would as would some others, but i know people that use could) been.

JPhillips 09-24-2009 12:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2126047)
Why would anyone in their right mind celebrate a net loss?

I assumed that we wouldn't see any of the 700 billion, so it's a pleasant surprise to get anything back, IMO.

JonInMiddleGA 09-24-2009 12:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 2126061)
net loss = cost to save our country...

Briefly, at best, by propping up failure that we're already seeing repeated (or am I the only person who drives past dozens of "own a home, no money down" signs every day?)

Was an expensive mistake that will ultimately prove futile, an opinion that I'm at least equally certain of as you are the "well worth it" part.

gstelmack 09-24-2009 12:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2126071)
Briefly, at best, by propping up failure that we're already seeing repeated (or am I the only person who drives past dozens of "own a home, no money down" signs every day?)

Was an expensive mistake that will ultimately prove futile, an opinion that I'm at least equally certain of as you are the "well worth it" part.

Agreed on this. Nothing fundamental has changed. We bailed out the banks, who now know they can do whatever and if it doesn't work out the government will bail them out again. The guys that nearly drove this economy off a cliff took home their millions / billions laughing all the way to the bank. What's to stop them from doing it again?

Maybe one good is that Ford seems to be in a decent position, having come through without needing federal assistance.

Flasch186 09-24-2009 12:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2126071)
Briefly, at best, by propping up failure that we're already seeing repeated (or am I the only person who drives past dozens of "own a home, no money down" signs every day?)

Was an expensive mistake that will ultimately prove futile, an opinion that I'm at least equally certain of as you are the "well worth it" part.

I assure you that no one is getting a 0 DP loan EXCEPT through the USDA, whose ratios make it so that even with the slightest bit of other debt, makes it a DNQ or possibly a V.A. loan, and these are available in very limited regions. The advertisements are just to get people through the door so that they can than gameplan with them on how to actually, really, buy a home. That, my friend, is a fact.

JonInMiddleGA 09-24-2009 12:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 2126089)
I assure you that no one is getting a 0 DP loan EXCEPT through the USDA, whose ratios make it so that even with the slightest bit of other debt, makes it a DNQ or possibly a V.A. loan, and these are available in very limited regions. The advertisements are just to get people through the door so that they can than gameplan with them on how to actually, really, buy a home. That, my friend, is a fact.

And they shouldn't exist period. That is also a fact.

Surely you can't honestly believe anyone involved with this in DC is actually smart enough to prevent the same mistakes that were made? Or even better, combine them with new ones. After all, it's only taxpayer money, when this is botched they'll just come back & get more.

Flasch186 09-24-2009 01:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2126095)
And they shouldn't exist period. That is also a fact.

Surely you can't honestly believe anyone involved with this in DC is actually smart enough to prevent the same mistakes that were made? Or even better, combine them with new ones. After all, it's only taxpayer money, when this is botched they'll just come back & get more.

All I know is you brought up 0 DP loans and theyre almost completely nonexistent eventhough that's your cornerstone of that particular post that lessons werent learned. The USDA ratios are so tight that I'd feel more confident giving them a 0 DP loan than I would a FHA 3.5% DP loan or even some people's 10%DP loans but you dont care about that because what you really wanted was to say that no one should get a 0 dp loan eventhough the USDA default rate is unbelievably low in comparison.

I believe the people in DC saved us from the 2nd Great Depression so where do you want to go from here?

JonInMiddleGA 09-24-2009 01:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 2126102)
I believe the people in DC saved us from the 2nd Great Depression so where do you want to go from here?

If you're saying that with a straight face then there's really not much common ground to travel that I can see. You see saviors, I see utter idiots that are far closer to deserving to be rounded up and shot than to garner even faint praise.
Kind of difficult to traverse that sort of gap.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:45 AM.
Page 111 of 527 « First < 1161101102103104105106107108109110 111 112113114115116117118119120121161211 > Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.