Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 51:
Line 51: + + + + + +
Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (view source)
Revision as of 17:26, September 18, 2009
, 17:26, September 18, 2009→Needs a major rewrite: new section
::::::And God forbid that you should ever be on a jury, given your simplistic notions of 'proof'. Now get into your tank and buzz off. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:42, 7 November 2008 (EST)
::::::And God forbid that you should ever be on a jury, given your simplistic notions of 'proof'. Now get into your tank and buzz off. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:42, 7 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::Bugler, maybe it's differnt in the UK. I'll admit upfront that I don't know how the legal system works across the pond. However I'm pretty familiar with how it works in the US. My "simplistic notions of 'proof'" are held by the courts here in the States: you have to actually have evidence in order to be sure of something without a reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence will not lead to a conviction without testimony of an eye witness. I think ''you'' are the one with a simplistic notion here -- if you think it, it must be true. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:51, 9 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::Bugler, maybe it's differnt in the UK. I'll admit upfront that I don't know how the legal system works across the pond. However I'm pretty familiar with how it works in the US. My "simplistic notions of 'proof'" are held by the courts here in the States: you have to actually have evidence in order to be sure of something without a reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence will not lead to a conviction without testimony of an eye witness. I think ''you'' are the one with a simplistic notion here -- if you think it, it must be true. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:51, 9 November 2008 (EST)
== Needs a major rewrite ==
It reads like a mix between a pro-liberal view of the organization, and an unreadable hodgepodge of quotes and factoids.
Let's get down to brass tacks. What are there aims? How much of their aims have they succeeded in? Has anything they've done actually helped the people they say they were aiming to help? What harm have they down in the name of helping the poor? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:26, 18 September 2009 (EDT)