Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now
Some strange reason, references does not show up. --Jpatt 22:17, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Because it isn't. Bugler 16:45, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- So what? That has what to do with ACORN? HelpJazz 13:08, 6 November 2008 (EST)