Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Stale links

What's the policy with stale links - should one replace them with archive.org links, or with roughly equivalent still-working links? I went with the latter for my first update. --DanKegel 9:29, 1 November 2011 (PST)

Giles and O'Keefe

Why isn't their dishonest video editing mentioned anywhere in the article? You can't ignore their dishonesty just because they're conservative.--MacN 18:15, 10 February 2011 (EST)

That is a leftist talking point by Media Matters. So congress defunded ACORN on a lie? Go peddle your liberalism elsewhere.--Jpatt 18:36, 10 February 2011 (EST)

Yes, yes, anything that shows the right in a negative light is clearly just liberal lies. At least we openly admit when there's problems with some of the people on the same side of the political spectrum as us, for example Stalin. But none of you can ever do any harm, and you're all perfect. It wasn't uncovered to be a fake until long after the fact, and by then far too many people had stopped donating. The federal government, by the way, only provided 10% of their funding.--MacN 19:37, 10 February 2011 (EST)

Nice sarcasm. You want to believe their innocent, they're not. Dishonest video editing? I mean that is such a lame excuse. I bet you believe Planned Parenthood and Shirley Sherrod are innocent because of dishonest conservative video editing. Do yourself a favor and quit being brainwashed by the DailyKos, Media Matters and Think Progress. --Jpatt 21:17, 10 February 2011 (EST)

I noticed you didn't actually give any reason why they shouldn't be in the article. Or address anything I said. You'd be surprised how easily you can make someone out to be the bad guy when you have sufficient video of them. But then you'd probably know all about that, what with how much Fox you probably watch. And FYI, I don't read/watch any of those.--MacN 22:45, 10 February 2011 (EST)

So where did you pick up your liberal talking points? ACORN is innocent, Fox is bad. I am not surprised by people caught using their own words on tape and then others dismissing. Crazy people saw the WTC towers struck live on TV but still claim it was an implosion that caused tower 7 to collapse. If you are not grounded in the truth, than you fall for anything. Your defense of ACORN shows your support for underage prostitution and you're ok with dozens of fraud convictions. Besides Bowbama is a big ACORN supporter so you feel justified in defending the group. Have you ever tried Wikipedia? They'll accept you liberalism with open arms. --Jpatt 23:46, 10 February 2011 (EST)

Some strange reason, references does not show up. --Jpatt 22:17, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Fixed :) HelpJazz 22:22, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sure why we're getting so up in arms about this. It has little to no bearing on the actual election...they tried to register Mickey Mouse for crying out loud! Did ACORN actually think they might get away with it? Perhaps more disconcerting: Did we? I'll admit it isn't exactly upholding the moral code of this wonderful nation, but I don't think it was a serious ploy to create an army of voters that didn't exist for Sen. Obama. Acwellman 23:19, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

Hey, I removed a few sentences (regardless of whether or not anecdotal evidence supports them) from the above because they are not properly cited. They seemed to reflect opinion, not fact. Acwellman 23:22, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

OK People

Here's the thing, DRamon. First of all, the way the sentence reads, it certainly implies that Obama won the election because of ACORN. If that's not what you are alleging, then change the sentence. If that is what you wanted to imply, then find a reference that claims 7.8 million votes were fake.

Secondly, you are claiming that you don't need a citation because the evidence is given in the rest of the article, but it's not. You are claiming that there were fradulant votes for Obama, and the article supplies evidence that there were fraudulant registrations. You claim that if there were fake registrations there must have been fake votes, but that's not necessarily true. There is a huge jump between people putting down "Mickey Mouse" on a form so that their boss pays them 50 cents extra, and actually faking a "Mickey Mouse" ID and having someone vote. I don't know how it is where you live, but in Ohio, it's pretty hard to fake a vote without a much larger conspiracy. If there is a conspiracy, there should be some evidence of it. This evidence goes into the fact tag which I am about to put back in. HelpJazz 11:52, 6 November 2008 (EST)

the thing is, nobody would know if a fraudulent vote was made, since it would be counted. Any time there's news about fraudulent registration (not voter fraud), the report originally came from ACORN itself... otherwise nobody, not even the GOP, would know and complain about it. See this. Everything you heard about registration fraud has been reported, caught, and dealt with by ACORN already. These things are caught by voter registration elections offices and tossed out. Even then, these fake registered voters have to actually show up at a poll and present an ID and vote to actually pull off fraud. Then, if caught, its a felony with some huge consequence that nobody is willing to risk voting twice for...
Also, by the same logic, we can say that the GOP folks who were arrested for fraudulent registration contributed to McCain's campaign, so you should add that to the statement too. xP Ema 12:04, 6 November 2008 (EST)
HelpJazz, your statement is plumb wrong. DRamon's sentence implies nothing of the sort. For once, a 'fact' tag has been correctly applied to your words. Bugler 12:06, 6 November 2008 (EST)
If that's not what you are alleging, then change the sentence. It's not what he's alleging. He has no reason to change the sentence - why don't you learn to read properly? Bugler 12:09, 6 November 2008 (EST)
Bugler, your comments are simply assertions which you can't prove and provide no imput to the discussion. How about instead of attacking me in some sad attempt to get me to leave the site and go back into my cesspit, you respond to the argument at hand. Whether or not he actually meant that ACORN won the election or ACORN supplied one vote in the election is inconsequential to the need for a citation, it just speaks to what the citation actually needs to say. HelpJazz 12:15, 6 November 2008 (EST)
Someone needs a 2 day block to calm down and stop flinging imprecations... XD!!!
if you're going to leave it there without citations, at least add that it aided McCain's campaign too... its not like they collected ONLY Obama votes... so obviously, logic dictates it helped McCain too! xD Ema 12:20, 6 November 2008 (EST)

My comments are not 'simply assertions' as HelpJazz inaccurately says; they are statements based on the simple truth of the matter. HelpJazz says that DRamon's sentence certainly implies that Obama won the election because of ACORN. What DRamon actually says is this: Electoral fraud perpetrated by ACORN contributed to Barack Obama's victory in the 2008 presidential elections. If HelpJazz cannot see the difference between the two statements, he needs to go and take a course in elementary logic. I have already made these points, which makes HelpJazz's imprecations all the more mystifying. I can only assume that, as a fully-paid up member of the Bugler Bashing Club, the old red mist descends whenever he sees my name. He really ought to desist, for the sake of his blood pressure if nothing else. Bugler 12:28, 6 November 2008 (EST)

HelpJazz, your statement is plumb wrong. That's an assertion backed up by DRamon's sentence implies nothing of the sort, another assertion. It's not what he's alleging. Another assertion. He has no reason to change the sentence. Assertion. why don't you learn to read properly? Pretty much an assertion, and an ad hom to boot.
Next, I have already stated that whichever meaning DRamon meant, it needs a citation. If he meant that ACORN contributed 1 or more votes fraudlently, as you read the sentence, then he needs a citation. If he meant that ACORN won the election for him, as I read the sentence, then he needs a citation. Do you see? It doesn't matter if I can't read, because it needs a citation.
Thirdly let's address your claims that I'm ony doing this because you are invovled: clearly, you have a bit of a persecution complex. This started before you were involved, and I made my initial comments before you were involved, so clearly this isn't about you. Get over yourself. Stick to the relevant argument at hand. HelpJazz 12:41, 6 November 2008 (EST)
Oh, my! While of course for you to say that [Bugler is] attacking me in some sad attempt to get me to leave the site and go back into my cesspit is merely an objective statement of fact. What a funny little chap you are at times. Bugler 12:49, 6 November 2008 (EST)
So what? That has what to do with ACORN? HelpJazz 13:08, 6 November 2008 (EST)
So what? Dear me. You launch ad hom attacks, accuse me of doing so, and when I address the insulting remarks you make, you accuse me of changing the subject. HelpJazz, I hope you get good royalties - clearly you are the author of the Liberal Book of Tricks. Let me So What? you, my friend: what has your insulting and lying claim that I am trying to force you out of Conservapedia got to do with ACORN? Bugler 15:29, 6 November 2008 (EST)
Here it is in plain language: Bugler it is very obvious to me that the only reason you are here is because I commented. Instead of discussing the issue at hand, you turned it onto me. Is that enough for you? If you want to discuss it further, go somewhere else. This page is for discussing ACORN, not for discussing how I am on a single-man campaign (or, God forbid, part of an intricate conspiracy) to "bash" you for no reason which has yet to be put forth. If you have anything else to say about ACORN, please say it. If not, then don't continue this discussion on this page. HelpJazz 16:20, 6 November 2008 (EST)
I came here to help sort out a situiation between you and DRamon, who I felt was being treated unfairly. The points you were - and are - making lacked logical rigour. You have taken offence at my pointing this out and launched a series of personal attacks on me, while at the same time attempting to pretend that I am the one motivated by personal animus. You are starting to sound overwrought - if I were you, I should take a break, have a nice cup of tea, and try to calm down and move on. We all feel the strain of work from time to time, and I'm not blaming you for your outbursts, but you really need to take care of your own wellbeing. Bugler 16:28, 6 November 2008 (EST)
It's cute, Bugler, that you think you are working me up. Your patronizing tone is duly noted.
Back on topic (finally!): your entire argument boils down to the assertion that my argument lacks "logical rigour". Do you care to explain this for my Liberal brain? I have already told you that it doesn't matter what my interpretation of the statement is, because either way a citation is needed. Where's the logical flaw in that? HelpJazz 16:41, 6 November 2008 (EST)
Because it isn't. Bugler 16:45, 6 November 2008 (EST)
It isn't what? If you aren't here to collaborate, can you just go somewhere else? I'm trying to work with you here. HelpJazz 16:51, 6 November 2008 (EST)
I'm trying to be patient here, HelpJazz. A citation isn't needed. You may think it is, but you clearly aren't thinking too rationally at the moment. A citation isn't needed because the example you gave is erroneous. You wrote If he meant that ACORN contributed 1 or more votes fraudlently, as you read the sentence, then he needs a citation. This doesn't need a citation because it is completely, transparently obvious that fraudulent votes obtained by this organisation were going to go totally or by overwhelming majority to Obama. Therefore one doesn't need a citation that Mr X. of Acacia Avenue voted fraudulently for Obama; the case is proven beyond reasonable doubt by the likelihood of the way the votes went. Enough. Finis. Fin. Bugler 17:07, 6 November 2008 (EST)
But ACORN also took votes for McCain, not just Obama... soooooo fraud works for both sides?? At least include mcCain's campaign! (I still think a 2 day block would be nice for mini trumpet boy... the way he stalks and insults editors is really disturbing if you check his contributions T_T) Ema 17:46, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Bugler: It may be completely, transparently obvious right now that ACORN's fraudulent votes would have counted for Obama, but what about the long-term viability of this project? People reading this page don't just include those who are currently paying attention to the American election. What about teenagers who are not yet politically aware? Or people five years from now who won't remember all the specifics? Assume for a moment that you're a new user reading about ACORN for the first time when you see this page. Does it tell you everything you need to know and not rely on unsourced common knowledge? --WPalmer 18:00, 6 November 2008 (EST)

As I said before, there is a difference between fraudulant registrations and fraudulant votes. You can't simply make up a name and go vote. When I went to vote, they took my state-issued ID and compared it against the name I used to register. If you are alleging that, without a doubt, ACORN supplied fake IDs to homeless people and then, again without a doubt, at least one of them voted for Obama, then you need a citation. But you can't say that for certain. It is your opinion that ACORN probably helped Obama win, based on the tenuous relationship between Obama and ACORN, but you can't actually say with certainty that that is what happened. If you want to change the statement to "Given ACORN's affinity for Obama, had any of the fraudulant registrations resulted in fraudulant votes, they likely helped Obama win." But I suspect you don't like that statement, since it lacks a certain polemical knack. Or maybe we should do as Ema suggests, and just state as fact that ACORN contributed to McCain's votes as well? HelpJazz 19:43, 6 November 2008 (EST)
I cannot say with absolute certainty, but I can say with certainty beyond reasonable doubt that illegal voting would have taken place, and that the balance of votes, even if some had been for McCain, would have been in favour of Obama. Surely the concept of 'beyond reasonable doubt' has some resonance? Bugler 11:15, 7 November 2008 (EST)
But where is the evidence? You must have evidence that makes you believe that illegal voting happened. The only evidence we have is that agents of ACORN, in an effort to make more money, put down fake names on their registration forms. And they got caught. There is simply zero evidence that (a) any of these registrations were made with the intention to actually use the votes and (b) ACORN took any efforts to falisify government identification, a necessary requirement to cast a false ballot. You believe beyond a reasonable doubt, but where is the testimony and the evidence that led you to this verdict? I have yet to seen Exibit A, and your case is entirely circumstantial. Activist judges maybe? HelpJazz 12:22, 7 November 2008 (EST)
Human nature, HelpJazz, the evidence of knowing what people are like in this troubled, Godforsaking world. Bugler 12:58, 7 November 2008 (EST)
In other words, you are just guessing. HelpJazz 13:54, 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. 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. HelpJazz 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? --Ed Poor Talk 13:26, 18 September 2009 (EDT)

Some good primary source material is at judicialwatch.org. [1][2] Rob Smith 16:46, 18 September 2009 (EDT)