About us Login Get email updates
Eric Boehlert
Print

James O'Keefe and the myth of the ACORN pimp

February 17, 2010 8:48 am ET

Last September, when the ACORN scandal that his website helped launch was breaking in the press, Andrew Breitbart wrote a column for The Washington Times detailing the rollout of the undercover, right-wing gotcha. He recalled a 2009 meeting with "filmmaker and provocateur James O'Keefe" that took place in Breitbart's office in June. It was there that O'Keefe played the columnist the surreptitiously recorded videos he'd made with his sidekick, Hannah Giles, and which captured the two famously getting advice from ACORN workers on how prostitutes could skirt tax laws.

In his Times column, Breitbart was quite clear about what he saw that day in his office: He watched videos of O'Keefe "dressed as a pimp" sitting inside ACORN offices "asking for -- and getting -- help" from the misguided employees.

But today we know that's almost certainly not true. Breitbart didn't huddle in his office and watch clips of O'Keefe "dressed as a pimp" chatting with ACORN employees, because based on all the available evidence, O'Keefe wasn't dressed as a pimp while taping inside the ACORN offices.

Make no mistake: Last fall, both Breitbart and O'Keefe, with the help of Fox News, did their best to confuse people about that fact. It's true the duo seemed to purposefully push that falsehood and mislead the public and the press about the ACORN story. And more importantly, they did it to make the ACORN workers captured on video look like complete jackasses for not being able to spot O'Keefe's pimp ruse a mile away.

But the story was not true.

Fact: On the guerilla clips posted online and aired on Fox News, O'Keefe was featured in lots of cutaway shots that were filmed outside and showed him parading around with Giles in his outlandish cane/top hat/sunglasses/fur coat pimp costume.

The cutaway shots certainly left the impression that that's how O'Keefe was dressed when he spoke to ACORN workers.

But inside each and every office, according to one independent review that looked at the public videos, O'Keefe entered sans the pimp get-up. In fact, he was dressed rather conservatively. During his visit to the Baltimore ACORN office, he wore a dress shirt and khaki pants. For the Philadelphia sting, he added a tie to the ensemble.

Instead, the '70s-era, blacksploitation pimp costume was a propaganda tool used to later deceive the public about the undercover operation. It was a prop that was quickly embraced by the mainstream media and turned into a central part of the ACORN story.

It's true that Giles was seen on the ACORN office tapes scantily clad as she discussed her future prostitution plans with ACORN workers. But it was the pimp costume, or the idea that O'Keefe was sitting there getting ACORN advice while decked out in it, that really hit the laughter button and caused the press -- and public -- to guffaw at ACORN's apparent cluelessness. Read: Not only were the ACORN employees morally suspect for doling out tax advice to a would-be prostitute, but the low-income advocates were dumb as stumps to boot!

"I can't believe ACORN believes this dude is a pimp!" exclaimed a Washington City Paper blogger last year, falsely reporting that O'Keefe arrived inside ACORN offices "looking like he had recently crawled from a frat house basement."

There's no doubt the pimp costume story worked. (Raise your hand if you were duped.) My guess is if you polled Americans today, and even ones who followed the story closely last year (including right-wing partisans), at least 90 percent would say O'Keefe sat inside ACORN offices while decked out in his pimp costume.

But it's not true. At least there have not been any publicly released ACORN videos to suggest otherwise.

And no, by pointing out the holes in the ACORN sting story, I'm not trying to excuse what was captured (illegally?) on tape. Everyone knows the embarrassing mistakes the poorly trained, low-level ACORN employees made when dealing with O'Keefe and Giles. That situation, and the continued fallout surrounding it, is for the organization to deal with.

Why the costume story is still important, though, is that it highlights the almost pathological streak that runs through Breitbart and O'Keefe's work, and how the press too often falls for their concocted cover stories. (See below; and yes, Media Matters has, at times, incorrectly stated O'Keefe wore his pimp outfit while meeting with ACORN workers.)

It's important to understand how Breitbart and O'Keefe were able to so easily plant the ACORN falsehood. That's especially true in the wake of O'Keefe's recent arrest in New Orleans, where he was cuffed with entering a federal building under false pretense and tagged with intent to commit a felony. As blogger Marcy Wheeler noted, O'Keefe's cover story for that failed caper is riddled with holes, which should be a red flag for journalists as Breitbart concocts his contradictory spin.

Wrote blogger Brad Friedman last week, as he highlighted the pimp falsehood against the backdrop of the New Orleans arrest:

If O'Keefe, and Breitbart, who still employs him, were that willing to out-and-out lie about the ACORN scam, seen as a successful one, just how far would the two GOP operatives be willing to go to get off the hook for what appears to be a very serious federal felony?

More importantly, if news organizations are still making the dressed-like-a-pimp mistake, it's time that they stop. And yes, that means you, New York Times.

Friedman has been trying to get the newspaper of record to correct its inaccurate reporting on the pimp issue -- reporting that appeared as recently as last month, following O'Keefe's New Orleans arrest. When one of Friedman's readers contacted the newspaper urging the same request, the reader was informed, via email by a Times senior editor for standards, that because O'Keefe claimed he'd been dressed as a pimp inside ACORN offices, and because O'Keefe had appeared on Fox News and made that claim, the Times did not need to post a correction.

Wrote the Times standards editor: "We believe" O'Keefe. (Yikes!)

That's nuts. It's one thing to be suckered in by Breitbart and O'Keefe's pimp costume tale, it's another for the Times to now defend its erroneous reporting. And even worse is the Times' implication that it's O'Keefe who gets to decide which version of the pimp story is true, despite all the contrary evidence.

Last December, former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger, commissioned by ACORN to independently review the facts surrounding the scandal, released his findings. Highly critical of ACORN and its employees, Harshbarger nonetheless concluded the undercover sting did not catch any employees breaking the law.

Harshbarger also shed light on the controversial videos, noting that portions had been "substantially" edited, including some voice overdubbing. And because O'Keefe and Breitbart refuse to let any outside observers -- including journalists -- view the full collection of unedited tapes, it's impossible to tell just how significantly the tapes were manipulated prior to their release.

This was another key, albeit mostly overlooked, finding from the report:

Although Mr. O'Keefe appeared in all videos dressed as a pimp, in fact, when he appeared at each and every office, he was dressed like a college student -- in slacks and a button down shirt.

It's worth nothing that if O'Keefe and Breitbart wanted to rebut Harshbarger's damaging claim about the lack of pimp costume -- a narrative both men worked hard to prop up last year -- it's logical they would release clips to disprove Harshbarger's finding. They would release a video that showed O'Keefe clearly dressed outlandishly as a pimp while sitting inside ACORN offices. But two months after the release of Harshbarger's report, Breitbart and O'Keefe have not done that.

Also note that earlier this month, after Friedman once again highlighted Harshbarger's finding, Breitbart posted this tweet:

How did the story first come to life? Not surprisingly, Fox News played a key role in hyping the phony pimp tale. During the second week in September 2009 when the ACORN story was breaking, O'Keefe appeared on Fox & Friends dressed up in his eccentric pimp get-up. Co-host Steve Doocy introduced O'Keefe as being "dressed exactly in the same outfit that he wore to these ACORN offices up and down the Eastern Seaboard" [emphasis added].

O'Keefe made no effort to correct Doocy's falsehood. Indeed, the entire point of O'Keefe dressing up that morning was so that Doocy could spread the pimp costume falsehood, which is why O'Keefe told Fox News viewers during the show: "I'm one of the whitest guys ever. I just wear ridiculous stuff and put people in ridiculous situations." The clear implication was that he wore "ridiculous stuff" into the ACORN offices.

There's just no proof he ever did.

Initially, many news outlets referred to O'Keefe as having "posed" as a pimp inside ACORN offices. And while there were problems with that wording, it was certainly better than claiming the undercover cameraman was "dressed" as a pimp while talking to ACORN employees. Yet for some reason, many journalists couldn't resist the lure of the "dressed" storyline.

Here's how CNN.com first reported the story on September 10, 2009:

Two employees at the Baltimore, Maryland, branch of the liberal community organizing group ACORN were caught on tape allegedly offering advice to a pair posing as a pimp and prostitute on setting up a prostitution ring and evading the IRS.

But note the erroneous change CNN made the following day:

T.J. HOLMES: Allegedly video out there taken by a conservative activist who dressed up like a pimp and had someone with him that was dressed up like a prostitute. They go into an office in Baltimore, one of these ACORN offices.

Soon, claiming O'Keefe was decked out in his comical pimp outfit while sitting inside the ACORN offices became the accepted norm.

New York Times:

They visited Acorn offices in Baltimore, Washington, Brooklyn and San Bernardino, Calif., candidly describing their illicit business and asking the advice of Acorn workers. Among other questions, they asked how to buy a house to use as a brothel employing under-age girls from El Salvador. Mr. O'Keefe, 25, a filmmaker and conservative activist, was dressed so outlandishly that he might have been playing in a risque high school play.

New York Post:

O'Keefe and Giles were garishly dressed as a stereotypical pimp and prostitute. O'Keefe was decked out in excessively snazzy flesh-peddler couture, and Giles, going by the name "Eden," wore almost nothing. The ACORN workers were not the slightest bit judgmental or put off by the request for help in getting financing for a brothel.

Philadelphia Daily News:

O'Keefe and Giles were dressed as a pimp and prostitute, just as they were during undercover visits to ACORN offices in Baltimore, Washington, Brooklyn and San Bernardino, Calif., over the summer.

NPR:

If you watch cable TV at all this week, you've almost certainly seen the images again and again -- a young man dressed as a pimp with a young woman posing as a prostitute. They are with ACORN workers who were supposed to be advising low-income people on taxes and home loans, but instead you hear this.

Dallas Morning News:

James O'Keefe, 25, dressed up as a cartoon version of a pimp. Hannah Giles, 20, barely dressed as a stereotypical hooker (or "freelance performing artist," as one Baltimore ACORN worker helpfully suggested). They stashed their camera and walked into ACORN offices from coast to coast, blatantly asking for help setting up housing for a prostitution business, which also would employ underage prostitutes from El Salvador.

Baltimore Sun:

The video sounds like a satire: A young man and woman, dressed as caricatures of a pimp and prostitute, walk into the Baltimore office of ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, and spin an outrageous story about how the woman needs help buying a house to set up as a brothel for underage Salvadoran girls.

Breitbart and O'Keefe have made it clear that they think they've stumbled onto the future of "conservative journalism" in the form of undercover pranks, so look for more Punk'd-style capers to come. But based on the trumped-up pimp story, and the fact that they chose to mislead the public about something as trivial as clothing, it should be clear journalists cannot accept as fact anything either man says.

Follow Eric Boehlert on Twitter.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by egb (February 17, 2010 9:28 am ET)
      4 58
      Libs are just jealous that they didn't think up the Breitbart/Okeefe techniques first. Summarizing your message here, O'Keefe didn't wear his pimp outfit when he went into ACORN. Good summary. What the videos do show is the low moral character of those involved with ACORN. On that, there is little dispute.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Johaely (February 17, 2010 9:57 am ET)
        3  
        Yeah we are envious of a morally and ethically bankrupt (and possibly illegal) technique to obtain flase information with the premise of discrediting an organization which i feel is a "threat" to me. And somehow that they have little moral character doesn't really work. Its very likely that they kept on talking with them with the goal of getting more information to call the police (as some ACORN offices actually did).
        Report Abuse
      • Author by bilbo_dies (February 17, 2010 10:11 am ET)
        32 4
        What the videos purport to show is the low moral character of those involved with ACORN.

        There, fixed it for you.

        BTW Just how do you feel about the low moral character of someone who misrepresents himself and then lies to cover his a$$?


        IOKIYAR?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by News Corpse (February 17, 2010 1:03 pm ET)
          23 1
          And if O'Keefe and Breitbart will lie about something tangential like a silly outfit, why wouldn't they lie about key elements of their stories? These guys aren't exactly journalists.

          [http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2602/3930246562_1abae2b2a1.jpg]
          Report Abuse
        • Author by PabloHyde (February 18, 2010 11:37 am ET)
            17
          liberals either miss the point entirely or they have chosen to ignore the main point.... ACORN is corrupt!!!... and it was shown to be corrupt multiple times.... the only response liberals have is that O'Keefe is "dishonest" because he dressed up and went undercover as a pimp... "what a dastardly vile technique!! obviously, anything he has uncovered while using this technique is all made up, just like his pimp story."...

          i love watching liberal "fish" flop around on the bottom of the boat!!!....:)
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 18, 2010 6:07 pm ET)
            9  
            ACORN is not corrupt. It's a bogey man sheep like you have been programmed to hate. Grow up and think for yourself.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by magnolialover (February 19, 2010 8:57 am ET)
            8 1
            What have they done that is corrupt or illegal? Nothing...
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Lorifae (February 19, 2010 5:35 pm ET)
            1  
            Just as an aside, you cannot claim an entire organization is corrupt just because someone found "a few bad apples". He went "up and down the eastern seaboard", probably visiting a number of Acorn offices. How many did he actually find that would help him? And what did he actually TELL them, in order to convince them to render assistance?

            If I visit 100 law firms, and 3 give me the means to break the law by avoiding taxes, does that mean that every law firm is corrupt? No, it means those three had individuals that were suspect.

            Additionally, if he is completely unwilling to show the UNEDITED tapes to people, that tends to imply that there's something on them that would damage the narrative he's trying to push, don't you think?

            Accepting anything you hear without questioning it, simply because it reinforces your own view of the world, is lunacy, no matter WHAT side of the political fence you're on.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by juk127608 (February 17, 2010 10:12 am ET)
        2  
        What a vacuous comment. egb seems able to look into the souls of liberals and see their jealousy! Speaking as a liberal, I am not jealous that I am unable to be as deceptive as Mr. O'Keefe.

        egb's "summary" of Boehlert's piece -- that O'Keefe did not wear the outlandish costume into the ACORN offices -- is, of course, not a summary at all. The point Boehlert is making relates to how the media (no doubt driven by the Fox News narrative) got important details completely wrong.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by RKAllen (February 17, 2010 10:12 am ET)
        45 2
        What the videos do show is the low moral character of those involved with ACORN.
        Just a few questions for you.

        1) Was it low moral character for one office to report the incident to Philadelphia police?

        2) Was it low moral character for one of the workers in a California office to contact National Police and then be put in contact with a Federal Officer in human trafficing before discovering that it was all a hoax?

        3) Was it low moral character for one employee to tell the pair that anything they do with ACORN, "must be legitimate,"?

        4) Was it low moral character for another ACORN employee to offer Hannah assistance in finding a shelter or home to get her out of prostitution?

        5) Do any of the videos actually show intent on the part of ACORN workers to continue pursuing these activities beyond the preliminary interview?

        6) Do any of these videos show intent on the part of ACORN employees to commit any kind of crimes at all?

        7)You don't find it the least bit curious that O'Keefe is requesting that the video he shot in the Senator's office be released to prove his own innocence while completely ignoring the fact that he has yet to release his own UNEDITED recordings of the ACORN employee's so they can properly defend themselves?


        I look forward to your answers.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by So Fain (February 17, 2010 10:13 am ET)
        33 2
        Didn't take you long to start making excuses. The evidence clearly points to fraud on the part of O'Keefe. If you cannot believe the editing of the video (which makes it appear he was dressed as a pimp) then the content of the same video cannot be believed at all. Obviously, these idiots have no shame with deception in their editing practices.

        ACORN still remains guilty of not one single crime. Show us the evidence of law-breaking by ACORN or STFU, Fox Zombie.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by DellDolly (February 17, 2010 1:22 pm ET)
          20 3
          The paid trolls hang out here, looking for new articles, trying to post first to derail the conversation away from the actual issue that should be being discussed.

          This isn't about what the videos DID show. It's not about ACORN.

          It's about how several people on the right were dishonest, and repeatedly so, over the issues raised here.

          But that first poster couldn't defend Breitbart, O'Keefe and others from the accurate charges that they were dishonest, and so he did what he could to talk about something else, anything else.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by ButteryPat (February 18, 2010 2:14 am ET)
          6 1
          "Show us the evidence of law-breaking by ACORN or STFU"

          I have evidence of law-breaking by somebody who saw ACORN!
          Report Abuse
      • Author by political_left-religious_right (February 17, 2010 11:02 am ET)
        26 2
        Libs are just jealous that they didn't think up the Breitbart/Okeefe [sic] techniques first.

        There's no jealousy involved; we're just pointing out the sleaze that's oozing from your side.

        Summarizing your message here, O'Keefe didn't wear his pimp outfit when he went into ACORN. Good summary.

        O'Keefe didn't wear his pimp outfit when he claimed to, and this blatant lie is being aided by a steady stream of right-wingers in the media. Better summary.

        What the videos do show is the low moral character of those involved with ACORN. On that, there is little dispute.

        Wow. It really isn't strong enough to say that you've got things totally backward. You've not only swung and missed, your swing went around and conked you on the back of your head, and now you're sprawled on the ground, seeing stars.

        Back to the minors with you.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (February 17, 2010 11:22 am ET)
        26 1
        The videos show the low moral character of O'Keefe and Giles. Since they are all doctored they don't really show anything about the ACORN workers.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by indictgwbush (February 17, 2010 12:07 pm ET)
        2  
        Yeah; helping people to use their Constitutionally given right to vote!
        How immoral!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by BobStreamMedia (February 17, 2010 12:28 pm ET)
        3  
        I love when people use the term "Libs". That way, you know right up front that you're dealing with a bigot.

        Actually, Einstein, this entire article is "disputing" the point you made. Actually, the report filed by the fmr. Atty. General "disputes" the "low moral character" of the ACORN employees.

        Tell me--when you watch "piano cat" on YouTube, do you believe that the cat actually knows how to play the piano? Or that he got himself all dressed up for his big performance? Is there anything easier in today's world than doctoring up video in order to make it SEEM like things are happening that really aren't?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by denbengerman (February 17, 2010 12:33 pm ET)
        2  
        I didn't see the videos (I don't like cartoons all that much), but I did read about the ACORN offices that called the police on O'Keefe, kicked O'Keefe out, told O'Keefe that ACORN would not help them in any way with O'Keefe's illegal activities, or advised them strongly to get out of prostitution. Do I get to conclude that every employee at ACORN has high moral standards? Am I allowed to hand-pick data and make across the board conclusions in the same manner you just did? You used edited and doctored videos to make your conclusion. I used newspaper reporting to make my conclusions. Which data set sounds more believeable?

        It is ignorant and disrespectful to cherry-pick a couple isolated negative situations to accuse everyone at any place of being guilty of the same behavior, as it is equally stupid to review the larger sampling of positive situations to conclude that 100% of an organization is perfect. Show some respect for intelligence, if not for the huge majority of ACORN employees who did the right thing.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by wookie (February 17, 2010 12:34 pm ET)
        20 1
        Actually Allen Funt thought up the Breitbart/Okeefe techniques first. And he did it with more credibility.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by trelan1701 (February 17, 2010 12:58 pm ET)
        18 1
        "Libs are good. Here, Breitbart/Okeefe show low moral character. On that, there is little doubt."

        Wow egb, what a nice thing to say!!!

        What? You object to my editing of your post?! I thought it was OK to leave out the stuff that doesn't fit my talking point?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by louee (February 17, 2010 2:24 pm ET)
        17 2
        God, what an incredible sleazebag you are! I hardly think I or the rest of the left need be jealous of a creep and a felon. Don't you have any morals whatsoever? Talk about low moral character. We've got a prime example right here.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by eddiebear2 (February 17, 2010 2:34 pm ET)
        3 19
        naw, they just have Morgan Spurlock or Michael Moore dressing people up like Muslims and then planting them at NASCAR events in the attempt to get a redneck to yell something racist
        Report Abuse
        • Author by foghornleghorn (February 17, 2010 6:11 pm ET)
          11 2
          Yep, with clearly visible camera crews beside them, not hidden in O'Keefe's pimp cane.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (February 18, 2010 2:26 am ET)
          9  
          What a stretch, eddiebear. Did either of those filmmakers dress somebody as a Muslim, send them in with hidden cameras to somebody at their job, and have the pretend clients start suggesting racist conversations ?

          Major league FAIL.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (February 17, 2010 3:20 pm ET)
        13 1
        Are you being sarcastic or are you just stupid?

        We're "jealous" of your to LIE, MISLEAD, DECIEVE, PROPGANDIZE, MISINFORM, FRAME, BEAR FALSE WITNESS, PURJER, MISREPRESENT, SMEAR, SLANDER and LIBEL?

        And those are things your PROUD of?! OMFG.

        I think you guys are jealous of the fact that we're right all the time, and everything you guys touch turns to $#!t, so you have to lash out with this nonsense like the spoiled little children you are.

        --------------------------------------------------------------
        You have no principles and you have no charecter. You people are indefensible.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by ButteryPat (February 18, 2010 2:09 am ET)
        6 2
        Really? How is their brilliant "technique" any different from that time Michael Moore sent a guy dressed as a chicken into Pfizer? Or that time he sent a guy dressed as Hitler to a Swiss bank to take out all the Nazi gold? Or really, most of what Michael Moore and a lot of liberal activist groups do that conservatives hate so much. I'm guessing you never watched an episode of the Awful Truth, did you?

        Well, I guess the difference is that Moore actually sent somebody dressed ridiculously instead of just making crap up. So yeah, you guys can have that technique.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by proudObamasupporter (February 18, 2010 9:25 am ET)
        4  
        I guess you missed the part of the article about the tapes being edited and the voices be dubbed over. and the part where they refuse to let anyone see the original tapes.

        No one on the left is jealous of the law breaking antics of the republicans. But the author is wrong that they thought it up, it was Nixon who came up with these techniques first.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Billyguitar (February 17, 2010 10:00 am ET)
      2  
      You're kidding, right? Who aspires to commit felonies by secretly recording video and audio of people without their consent? Stoopid idea and he'll pay for it.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by kcboomer (February 17, 2010 10:39 am ET)
        2
      Boy the news must really be slow. Once again the big uproar here is wether or not he was wearing a pimp outfit. Oooh. Does it really matter??? If this is all you have to debate, you really need a life.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by benyflozod2374 (February 17, 2010 10:52 am ET)
      2  
      Almost always Breitbart and his ilk's "facts" fall apart like a house of cards. By that time the "news" media has spread the bull as fact and Breitbart is on to the next scam.........
      Report Abuse
    • Author by newzhound (February 17, 2010 11:12 am ET)
      17  
      Excellent post! Well played.

      Mr. O'Keefe's costume does not include a "top hat." That's a fedora.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by MagCynic (February 17, 2010 11:16 am ET)
      4 32
      How would you all react if a story got out that a Burger King employee in Ohio was taking baths in the kitchen sinks? He's a low level employee. Would you think less of the chain overall? What if -instead of just that one location - it was at ten different locations across the country all doing the same thing? They're still low level employees. Would you think differently of the company then? What if it was 20? 30?

      These are all rhetorical questions of course. You can simply call me a tea bagging racist and be done with it.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by RKAllen (February 17, 2010 11:29 am ET)
        29 3
        But, your argument simply doesn't hold water. The fact that employees would be washing themselves in the kitchen sink has nothing to do with Burger King policy. The only way that this could be an indictment of the company would be if they had a policy that allowed employees to bathe themselves in company sinks or, after discovering the actions of their employees, did nothing to inform their employees that this sort of behavior is prohibited by their organization.

        In short... no, I don't hold an entire organization responsible for the actions of a few low level employees.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by pworrall5511 (February 17, 2010 11:44 am ET)
          2  
          And don't forget, other offices did apparently turn them away and/or call the authorities.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by raddave43 (February 17, 2010 12:26 pm ET)
          13  
          But, what if they were taking baths in the kitchen sinks and picking their noses?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 17, 2010 12:55 pm ET)
            16 2
            But, what if they were taking baths in the kitchen sinks and picking their noses?
            ...They'd probably be a conservative looking for their brain.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (February 17, 2010 11:38 am ET)
        11  
        I don't understand your point.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by So Fain (February 17, 2010 11:59 am ET)
        18 1
        Was ACORN taking a bath in the kitchen sink? If so, that WOULD be a violation of the law. However, I'm yet to see an ACORN employee breaking any law whatsoever. The only evidence you have is this obviously deceptively doctored video?

        If the video would be thrown out of court (which it would on day 1) then it has NO PLACE in the mainstream media... And it doesn't get any more mainstream than Fox.

        Epic fail.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by davemccarthymusic9410 (February 17, 2010 12:02 pm ET)
        20  
        "These are all rhetorical questions of course."

        Not just rhetorical, but utterly moronic.

        I think i'll call you MR NON SEQUITUR...
        Report Abuse
      • Author by congero6189599 (February 17, 2010 12:06 pm ET)
        18 2
        none of what you allege at Burger King happened at ACORN. Your're a tea-bagging racist and I'am done with it.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by MagCynic (February 17, 2010 12:11 pm ET)
          1 23
          Really? Read this please.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by robbo24 (February 17, 2010 12:28 pm ET)
            19 1
            I thought you were linking to some kind of logical point that would defend your position. But then, you're a tea-bagger and thus have no experience with logic. Le grand fail!
            Report Abuse
            • Author by MagCynic (February 17, 2010 12:30 pm ET)
              1 23
              He clearly didn't understand what the heck I was talking about so I provided a handy link to an article on reading comprehension. Pay attention next time instead of butting in.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 17, 2010 12:56 pm ET)
                16 1
                Cons can't do analogies. They are missing that piece of their brain amongst others. You shouldn't even try.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by MagCynic (February 17, 2010 1:05 pm ET)
                  1 21
                  Hey, there. Welcome to the conversation. Glad you can butt in and provide nothing productive whatsoever. See, ya!
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 17, 2010 1:12 pm ET)
                    16 2
                    Glad you can butt in and provide nothing productive whatsoever.
                    Making fun of you is productive. You are a source of entertainment for us. It's like a circus freak show except you have extremely low intelligence instead of a grotesque physical features. Unfortunately, mentally deficient freaks aren't rare enough to be in circus freak shows. Heck, they even made a channel to cater to them; Fox News.
                    Report Abuse
                      • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 17, 2010 1:32 pm ET)
                        17 2
                        OK, I'll bite. What have I said to make you feel that my intelligence is low? Do I lie a lot? Do I belittle people like you seem to enjoy doing? Do I pull facts out of my butt and pass them off as truth?
                        A smart person would not equate lying and "belittling" with low intelligence, as you have here. Neither have anything to do with intelligence. Ann Coulter is a liar and makes a living at belittling. However, even her harshest critics wouldn't call her dumb. Evil, but not dumb.

                        Your unwavering support of Beck and your attempts to spin his bizarre and insane rantings is indicative of a person of low intelligence. If you did a skilled job of spinning, then we'd have to admit that you were a rare intelligent minion of Beck. Instead, your attempts to defend him are feeble, indicating that you are one of his low-information target demographic.
                        Report Abuse
                          • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 17, 2010 1:41 pm ET)
                            16 2
                            Prove to the whole site what a big dummy I am with my actual words.
                            I just did. You equated lying and belittling with intelligence. People on this site can read your words themselves.
                            Report Abuse
                              • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 17, 2010 1:49 pm ET)
                                16 1
                                If you're so much smarter than me it should be elementary to dig up one quote of mine.
                                Elementary but unnecessary. What are the odds that you would acknowledge your stupidity if you saw it? Zero. I'm not going to waste my time as long as there are still cons out there that need belittling.
                                Report Abuse
                                  • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 17, 2010 1:58 pm ET)
                                    14 1
                                    Blanket accusations, ad hominem attacks, insults.
                                    Ad hominem attacks are insults that aren't germane to the discussion. Your intelligence is germane, as is your judgment, especially your choice of heroes.

                                    I thought you were leaving this thread? I guess you are a liar.
                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by MagCynic (February 17, 2010 2:11 pm ET)
                                      1 14
                                      LOL. I'm still not seeing any evidence.

                                      "I thought you were leaving this thread? I guess you are a liar. "
                                      Nope. Just leaving the part about ACORN. Sorry to disappoint.
                                      Report Abuse
                                      • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 17, 2010 2:19 pm ET)
                                        14 1
                                        LOL. I'm still not seeing any evidence.
                                        Of course you don't.

                                        Nope. Just leaving the part about ACORN. Sorry to disappoint.
                                        The whole thing is about ACORN.
                                        Report Abuse
                                  • Author by catfish1968 (February 18, 2010 2:44 am ET)
                                    7  
                                    Yeah, there never is ad hominem attacks anywhere on the internet by right-wingers.

                                    /sarcasm
                                    Report Abuse
                              • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (February 18, 2010 2:34 am ET)
                                7  
                                MagCynic, I think your idiotic Burger King analogy is evidence enough.

                                And no, that's not an Ad Hominem attack. You victim-mentality wingnuts love to misinterpret that, but noticing that you failed is not a personal attack , it about your logic.
                                Report Abuse
                          • Author by The_Cat (February 18, 2010 11:40 am ET)
                            10  
                            I'm your huckleberry, MagCynic. Above, you confused the actions of a few low level employees (burger flippers bathing in sinks at work), with the policies of the Burger King corporation. It is not and never has been acceptable for employees to bathe in the kitchen sinks at work at Burger King. Likewise, it is not and never has been corporate policy at ACORN that employees must help those who traffic in human flesh to set up brothels or tax shelters. Never. Your inability to see the distinction in this case shows that you are not too terribly bright.

                            Both ACORN and the Pimp & Ho Show have been investigated. The Pimp & Ho Show is the one currently facing possible charges. The Pimp of the Pimp & Ho Show, already guilty of propaganda because of the misleading videos he created, then broke into the office of a sitting U.S. Senator in furtherance of committing a felony, and you defend this. So, in addition to being unintelligent, you are also amoral. At least you will be able to pass the Faux Con Purity Test.
                            Report Abuse
                    • Author by DellDolly (February 17, 2010 1:26 pm ET)
                      13 4
                      Making fun of him repeatedly is NOT productive.

                      One person should read the post, demolish his post, then everyone else should ignore it so the string doesn't go on and on, distracting from the actual topic.

                      Posters like MagCynic WANT the negative attention.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 17, 2010 1:27 pm ET)
                        13 3
                        Posters like MagCynic WANT the negative attention.
                        That's true. But calls to ignore trolls never work. So, we might as well bug them.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by DellDolly (February 17, 2010 4:00 pm ET)
                          6 2
                          Yes, they DO work. It's just not true that they don't work. You're buying into the lies from the trolls themselves when you say that they don't work.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 17, 2010 4:26 pm ET)
                            7 1
                            Yes, they DO work. It's just not true that they don't work.
                            They don't work in that we can't get 100% compliance from the liberal posters here. That's why is said the CALLS (Wow, I can do that too. Cool.) to ignore trolls never work, not the actual ignoring itself.

                            If you truly are Sue, I'm glad to see you've recovered from your stroke. Email me. She and I had a nice conversation going over email and IM back in the old days.
                            Report Abuse
                        • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 17, 2010 1:37 pm ET)
                          11 2
                          Cons wouldn't come here unless they want to draw negative attention. They certainly aren't changing anyone's mind.
                          Report Abuse
                            • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 17, 2010 1:53 pm ET)
                              12 1
                              And it's very difficult to change anyone's mind when they refuse to even entertain the notion that conservatism could be good for the country.
                              We know it's not. It's demonstrably provable that conservatism doesn't work. People much more capable than you have attempted to dress up conservatism intellectually and have failed to sell it. Like Obama said, "...you can put lipstick on a pig..". That said, people with your limited rhetorical skill have absolutely no chance.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by MagCynic (February 17, 2010 2:00 pm ET)
                                1 13
                                Conservatism may not be perfect but nothing is. It is demonstrably closer to the Founder's original form of government than progressivism.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 17, 2010 2:03 pm ET)
                                  11 1
                                  It is demonstrably closer to the Founder's original form of government than progressivism[sic].
                                  Nope. That's a myth.
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by MagCynic (February 17, 2010 2:10 pm ET)
                                    1 12
                                    Would you like me to provide quotes from our Founders? Or would you like to provide quotes from our Founders spouting the benefits of progressivism?

                                    Insult me all you want on my intelligence but this is an argument you won't win.
                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 17, 2010 2:14 pm ET)
                                      18 1
                                      Personal liberty and concepts such as privacy rights, freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of religion are all liberal ideas. Capitalism isn't what makes America special. There are many capitalistic societies. What makes America special is its committment to personal liberty. Note that personal liberty doesn't mean that you have freedom from paying taxes and supporting the government that protects us all and provides the foundation for our economic progress. America was founded on liberalism. This is a fact.
                                      Report Abuse
                                      • Author by MagCynic (February 17, 2010 2:22 pm ET)
                                        1 13
                                        "America was founded on liberalism. This is a fact. "

                                        Classic liberalism. It was founded on classic liberalism. Modern conservatism - the one espoused by guys like Beck - seek to conserve the Founding principles of this nation. If you agree with the Founding principles then - congratulations - you are a conservative.

                                        Progressivism is the antithesis of classic liberalism.
                                        Report Abuse
                                        • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 17, 2010 2:28 pm ET)
                                          13 2
                                          Progressivism is the antithesis of classic liberalism.
                                          Wrong.
                                          Report Abuse
                                          • Author by MagCynic (February 17, 2010 2:29 pm ET)
                                            2 11
                                            I would love to hear why progressivism is the same thing as classic liberalism. Enlighten me.
                                            Report Abuse
                                            • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 17, 2010 2:34 pm ET)
                                              12  
                                              I would love to hear why progressivism[sic] is the same thing as classic liberalism.
                                              All of the things I listed are the foundation of modern liberalism.

                                              Meanwhile, you have conservatives attempting to regulate what you can and can't do in your bedroom and arguing against the 1st amendment's establishment clause that both protects government from religion and vice versa.
                                              Report Abuse
                                              • Author by MagCynic (February 17, 2010 2:38 pm ET)
                                                  14
                                                Try to stay on topic. Why is classic liberalism the same as progressivism?

                                                And clearly you have no clue what a conservative actually believes in. It seems as if you form your basis of what a conservative is purely from sites like MMFA's misuse of the word.
                                                Report Abuse
                                                • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 17, 2010 2:47 pm ET)
                                                  14  
                                                  Why is classic liberalism the same as progressivism[sic]?
                                                  I gave you a list of values that this country was founded on that are the basis for liberalism, modern or otherwise.

                                                  It seems as if you form your basis of what a conservative is purely from sites like MMFA's misuse of the word.
                                                  My evaluation of cons comes from reading their words, their arguments and their actions. Any movement that canonizes someone with the stupefying ignorance of Beck, is no movement for a thinking, sentient being.
                                                  Report Abuse
                                                  • Author by MagCynic (February 17, 2010 2:59 pm ET)
                                                      14
                                                    I gave you a list of values that this country was founded on that are the basis for liberalism, modern or otherwise.
                                                    None of those values are cherished by progressives. I have a funny feeling you're confusing conservatism, liberalism, classic liberalism, and progressivism.
                                                    Report Abuse
                                                    • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 17, 2010 3:18 pm ET)
                                                      13  
                                                      None of those values are cherished by progressives.
                                                      You don't get to tell us what we cherish.
                                                      Report Abuse
                                                    • Author by Ruby (February 17, 2010 3:19 pm ET)
                                                      11  
                                                      It's my opinion that you invest far, far, far too much in labels.

                                                      Why can't I and everyone else just think what I think? Why do we need to fit neatly into a category?

                                                      The reason why the majority of the people in this country are independents is because they aren't ideologues--they don't lock themselves in boxes and define their thinking with an empty label. Most people are to the right/conservative when it comes to some issues, and to the left/progressive/liberal/whatever side on others.

                                                      The founding fathers were free thinkers. They did not lock themselves up with labels. I think we'd all do well to follow their example.
                                                      Report Abuse
                                                    • Author by raddave43 (February 18, 2010 2:23 am ET)
                                                      6  
                                                      I think you are confusing conservatism with neoconservatism.
                                                      Report Abuse
                                        • Author by Ruby (February 17, 2010 3:16 pm ET)
                                          14  
                                          Glenn Beck believes that the separation of church and state is bogus. He says that the separation of church and state was an invention of those evil progressives he hate so much. Our founding fathers knew that one of the WORST things that can happen to a government is to let religion into it. Glenn Beck shows contempt for the founding principles of this country in this way and others.
                                          Report Abuse
                                          • Author by MagCynic (February 17, 2010 3:40 pm ET)
                                              12
                                            Glenn Beck believes that the separation of church and state is bogus.

                                            Find a quote them of him stating this belief. I'll reckon I watch him much more often than you do and I've never heard him espouse this belief.
                                            Report Abuse
                                            • Author by Ruby (February 17, 2010 3:44 pm ET)
                                              13  
                                              "Progressives have built up this wall of separation between church and state and it's nonsense. It is not what we were founded on...Let's take down that fictional wall. It never existed."

                                              --Glenn Beck
                                              Report Abuse
                                              • Author by MagCynic (February 17, 2010 4:11 pm ET)
                                                  12
                                                OK. And link to the rest of it so I can see what he was talking about. You do realize that the wall of separation wasn't the one Jefferson was talking about, don't you?
                                                Report Abuse
                                                • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 17, 2010 4:19 pm ET)
                                                  12  
                                                  You do realize that the wall of separation wasn't the one Jefferson was talking about, don't you?
                                                  Funny how you move the goal posts. How very conservative of you.

                                                  I posted the original quote from Jefferson the other day. He used to the term "separation of church and state" to further clarify the 1st amendment's establishment clause.

                                                  Knock yourself out.
                                                  Report Abuse
                                                • Author by Ruby (February 17, 2010 4:55 pm ET)
                                                  12  
                                                  It's from his November 26 broadcast on Fox. For whatever reason, it's not letting me copy and paste the link. You can searce it on google or here on media matters.

                                                  He stated, very plainly and very clearly, that progressives have built a wall of separation of church and state and that it's NONSENSE. That we were not founded on it. That the founding fathers DID NOT WANT separation of church and state.

                                                  Beck is hosting an event in Orlando based on this. This event will revolve around a speaker named David Barton, who has written a book touting this belief called the "Myth of Separation". This author and this book have been widely discredited, because it appears that Mr. Barton just completely made up quotes from various founders supporting his claim that no one was able to find the original source for.

                                                  One of Barton's dubious claims is that Thomas Jefferson wanted the "separation" to be one-directional, i.e. to protect the church from the state, NOT to protect the state from the church. In order to believe this, of course, you have to completely disregard Jefferson's many documented and very critical views of organized religion as a whole, and Christianity in particular (such as: "I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who call themselves Christians.")

                                                  Case in Point: Beck thinks the separation is bogus and not what the founders intended, and nothing could be further from the truth.
                                                  Report Abuse
                                                  • Author by MagCynic (February 17, 2010 5:30 pm ET)
                                                      10
                                                    I'm not going to bother googling it, I'll just take your word for it. Suffice it to say we'll see if your theory about Beck's Orlando show holds up regarding this separation of church and state.

                                                    I will say this, though. In my readings - outside of Jefferson of course - I haven't read a whole lot about the Founders wanting a wall of division between religion and government. It almost seems like they didn't concern themselves too much with it as long as government didn't force one religion on anybody.
                                                    Report Abuse
                                                    • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 17, 2010 5:54 pm ET)
                                                      7  
                                                      I will say this, though. In my readings - outside of Jefferson of course - I haven't read a whole lot about the Founders wanting a wall of division between religion and government.
                                                      Yeah. That Jefferson guy. Who the hell was he? He can be completely ignored.
                                                      Report Abuse
                                                    • Author by Ruby (February 17, 2010 6:10 pm ET)
                                                      9  
                                                      In that case, I have to say that I don't think you've read a sufficient amount either by or about the founders.
                                                      Report Abuse
                                • Author by peebs755 (February 17, 2010 2:18 pm ET)
                                  13  
                                  Read what the Founding Fathers actually thought about things, not what you're told, and you'll see that conservatism is NOT demonstrably closer.
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 17, 2010 2:31 pm ET)
                                    11 2
                                    The "Founding Fathers" would look at Beck as the uneducated crank that he is. Can you imagine them looking at the Obama administration and coming up with the loony conspiracy theories that are Beck's bread and butter? They were under George III. They knew what real tyranny looked like. In that respect, GWB was aptly named.
                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by MagCynic (February 17, 2010 2:39 pm ET)
                                        12
                                      Well tell me what Beck believes in that puts him against the Founders.
                                      Report Abuse
                                      • Author by Ruby (February 17, 2010 3:21 pm ET)
                                        14  
                                        Beck is AGAINST the separation of church and state. He thinks it's bogus. This goes completely against the beliefs of the founding fathers.
                                        Report Abuse
                                • Author by denbengerman (February 17, 2010 4:26 pm ET)
                                  1  
                                  I am continually baffled by claims made by some that the founders of this country were conservatives. They weren't disposed to preserve existing conditions or limit change. They were revolutionaries. My goodness, has our history been so distorted as to make one believe that the American Revolution was a conservative plan? There were conservatives that did not want independence from the British, but they didn't get their way. Because the radicals got their way, this country claimed independence, set up a brand new government, and began an evolutionary democratic process that remains the wonder and beckoning light to the world.
                                  Report Abuse
                            • Author by louee (February 17, 2010 2:31 pm ET)
                              17 1
                              I have to jump in here. I will not entertain the ignominious notion that conservatism is good for the country becaus I would have to be in total denial of my eyes, ears and experiences from 2000 to 2008. Conservatives are low braying dogs who don't give a dam about anyone but themselves. They're a blight on society who refuse to take responsibility for the harm they have wrought on the rest of us. They are war mongers and thieves. Any questions?
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 17, 2010 2:35 pm ET)
                                14  
                                I like your style. Pulling punches have gotten liberals nowhere.
                                Report Abuse
                              • Author by MagCynic (February 17, 2010 2:37 pm ET)
                                  15
                                No questions. Clearly you have no clue what conservatism is and thus have no hope in even understanding.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 17, 2010 2:44 pm ET)
                                  12 1
                                  Conservatism is Glen Beck, a pathetic petty narcissist that is a perfect spokesman for a corrupt ideology that is based on codifying narcissism, stupidity, jingoism, extreme nationalism, and religious intolerance.

                                  If you really want to get educated, read what the founders said about the dangers of oligarchy, something the cons embrace with every inch of their bosom.
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by MagCynic (February 17, 2010 2:57 pm ET)
                                      11
                                    It sounds like Beck, yourself, and myself all may believe many of the same things. You're just too unwilling to admit it.
                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 17, 2010 3:23 pm ET)
                                      11 1
                                      Beck is a corporatist. I am not.

                                      I talked to some libertarians that were trying to get me to join their party once. I agreed with their views on social issues, but knew that their beliefs in regard to economics were hopelessly naive and utopian. Now that I have some more experience and knowledge under my belt I see that they are dangerous as their beliefs are anti-democracy. They think that the majority shouldn't be able to collectively set policy, such as funding a social program etc. That's where we part ways. I believe in personal freedom, but one of them is not the right to get filthy rich without contributing back to society. Libertarianism is unworkable and that's why it's never been successfully been implemented in any long-term stable society.
                                      Report Abuse
                                      • Author by MagCynic (February 17, 2010 4:18 pm ET)
                                          10
                                        such as funding a social program etc
                                        Funding social programs is fine as long as it follows the guidelines of the Constitution. Many progressives seem to think the ends justify the means. For security's sake you have to strictly follow the Constitution otherwise there will be no end to government involvement in the private lives of the citizens.
                                        Report Abuse
                                        • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 17, 2010 4:20 pm ET)
                                          12  
                                          Funding social programs is fine as long as it follows the guidelines of the Constitution.
                                          The Constitution is agnostic as to what social programs should be funded. It's up to our elected representatives to decide what our priorities are. If libertarians don't like it, they can form their own country somewhere and see how that works out.
                                          Report Abuse
                                          • Author by MagCynic (February 17, 2010 4:47 pm ET)
                                              9
                                            "The Constitution is agnostic as to what social programs should be funded."
                                            True. The types (health, employment, education) are agnostic but they all still have fall under an enumerated power. What do you think the General Welfare means? Do you think it gives Congress carte blanche to spend on whatever they want? Or do you think the Founders set up the federal government with specific limits in place?
                                            Report Abuse
                                            • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 17, 2010 5:05 pm ET)
                                              8  
                                              [b]Do you think it gives Congress carte blanche to spend on whatever they want?
                                              Yes. However, they are accountable to the people which serves as the check.
                                              Or do you think the Founders set up the federal government with specific limits in place?
                                              The limits are there to protect the individual from the powerful, not the other way around. If the majority of Americans want a universal health care system, paid for from taxes, then they should get it. Libertarianism is anti-democratic as it thwarts the will of the people who want to act collectively.
                                              Report Abuse
                                              • Author by MagCynic (February 17, 2010 5:21 pm ET)
                                                  6
                                                Yes. However, they are accountable to the people which serves as the check.
                                                Ah... finally. You smell that? That's the smell of wrong. It smells lovely, doesn't it? After all my time on MMFA I finally and clearly have somebody that is wrong. It feels great. Just read some of these quotes here.
                                                The limits are there to protect the individual from the powerful, not the other way around.
                                                Where do you get your U.S. history education from? The Constitution isn't to protect the individual from the powerful unless the powerful IS the government. The Constitution is a restraining document put in place to prevent the federal government from encroaching upon the liberties of the people.
                                                If the majority of Americans want a universal health care system, paid for from taxes, then they should get it.
                                                My, God! That's not how a Republic works. That's a Democracy you are referring too.

                                                Seriously I'm sort of shocked. I actually did think you were smarter than this and wouldn't make it that easy on me. Don't take this the wrong way as you could be smarter than me at many things. The Constitution, though, you are not.
                                                Report Abuse
                                                • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 17, 2010 5:44 pm ET)
                                                  7  
                                                  That's the smell of wrong. It smells lovely, doesn't it?
                                                  Where in the Constitution does it limit the amount of money the government can spend?
                                                  The Constitution isn't to protect the individual from the powerful unless the powerful IS the government.
                                                  In the oligarchy that the cons are trying the create, they are merged.
                                                  My, God! That's not how a Republic works. That's a Democracy you are referring too.
                                                  Wrong. We have a representative democracy(they shouldn't be capitalized by the way, sport). I vote for representatives who then turn around and vote on legislation. Some of this legislation determines what the government spends its money on. It's really very simple. You are getting confused between representative democracy and direct democracy. I never suggested that we have a direct democracy.
                                                  Seriously I'm sort of shocked. I actually did think you were smarter than this and wouldn't make it that easy on me. Don't take this the wrong way as you could be smarter than me at many things. The Constitution, though, you are not.
                                                  It's the current conservative interpretation of the Constitution that you are pretending is sacrosanct. If your interpretation were correct, then years ago the Supreme Court would have struck down Congress's right to fund all sorts of programs that aren't enumerated explicitly in the Constitution.
                                                  There might be some that hold your rather odd opinion of the Constitution, but they clearly are in the vast minority.
                                                  Report Abuse
                                                  • Author by MagCynic (February 17, 2010 6:03 pm ET)
                                                      8
                                                    Where in the Constitution does it limit the amount of money the government can spend?
                                                    OK? That's kind of a random question to ask me seeing as how I wasn't even talking about that. The Constitution doesn't limit the amount. It only limits what they can do with that amount of money.
                                                    Wrong. We have a representative democracy
                                                    You are wrong, my friend. We are and always have been a republic. Although I'm not certain what the difference is between that and a representative democracy.
                                                    If your interpretation were correct, then years ago the Supreme Court would have struck down Congress's right to fund all sorts of programs that aren't enumerated explicitly in the Constitution
                                                    That's a whole different can of worms. Part of the reason so many unconstitutional programs are active is that they base their decisions on previous court decisions and NOT the Founders' word.
                                                    Report Abuse
                                                    • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 17, 2010 6:08 pm ET)
                                                      6  
                                                      The Constitution doesn't limit the amount. It only limits what they can do with that amount of money.
                                                      Really. Please enlighten us. What part of "promote the general welfare" don't you understand.
                                                      You are wrong, my friend. We are and always have been a republic. Although I'm not certain what the difference is between that and a representative democracy
                                                      I thought you were the Constitutional expret! Here's a hint. There is no substantive difference. Some would say that a republic protects minority civil rights, even against the majority will. However, unless you consider getting insanely rich a civil right, it doesn't apply to this discussion.
                                                      Part of the reason so many unconstitutional programs are active is that they base their decisions on previous court decisions and NOT the Founders' word.
                                                      That's the extreme right's interpretation of the Constitution. In other words, it's just your opinion and the opinion of other kooks like Glen Beck.
                                                      Report Abuse
                                                      • Author by MagCynic (February 17, 2010 6:26 pm ET)
                                                          7
                                                        What part of "promote the general welfare" don't you understand.
                                                        It's promote the General Welfare in the preamble. It's provide for the General Welfare in Article 1 Section 8. One of the prime directives of the federal government is to simply promote the General Welfare. Congress, specifically though, has the power to provide for the General Welfare. The question though is what is meant by General? We know the Founders didn't intend the government to have unlimited powers to provide for the welfare of the country so we do know that there is a limit. That limit, I believe, is best summed up by Alexander Hamilton (not my favorite Founder, btw) who said:
                                                        That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.
                                                        From the quote it means that - when providing for the General Welfare of the nation - it must apply equally to everybody as opposed to one group of people. Essentially for it to be Constitutional EVERYONE must see a benefit from it and not just the poor, rich, black, white, Californians, Floridians, etc. This means, ironically, that universal healthcare would technically be Constitutional if it were available equally to every citizen and not a specific group of them. Of course that's assuming we could even afford it to begin with.
                                                        Report Abuse
                                                        • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 17, 2010 6:43 pm ET)
                                                          6  
                                                          This means, ironically, that universal healthcare would technically be Constitutional if it were available equally to every citizen and not a specific group of them
                                                          Sweet. I knew I liked them founders for a reason!
                                                          Report Abuse
                                                          • Author by MagCynic (February 17, 2010 7:00 pm ET)
                                                              7
                                                            Wow. You said something positive in response to a posting of mine for a change. I'm shocked. Just because it may - keyword may depending on how they set it up - be Constitutional doesn't mean we should pass it still.
                                                            Report Abuse
                                                            • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 17, 2010 7:21 pm ET)
                                                              5  
                                                              Just because it may - keyword may depending on how they set it up - be Constitutional doesn't mean we should pass it still.
                                                              I think there should be vigorous discussion and debate about what our government spends its money on. The problem is that people like you want to couch the debate into ideological terms. Instead of debating whether this social program should be supported, the objections become about whether the government has the right to be creating social policies in the first place. In fact even that tactic has been has been abandoned in favor of simply pointing in the direction of the White House and yelling "socialism!".

                                                              It's OK to not think the government should pay for someone's health care. It really is. What isn't right is to demonize the other side and lie about their motives in order to avoid simply saying, "I don't want to have to pay for it." That is exactly what has happened. Glen Beck has played a big part in the coarsening of this debate through his sloganeering and inflammatory rhetoric. This distortion of the facts may win the day yet. So, as an effective strategy it may have been a good choice for the anti-government ideologues. However, it should offend anyone who values reasoned debate based on facts, rather than sound bites.
                                                              Report Abuse
                                                        • Author by raddave43 (February 18, 2010 2:33 am ET)
                                                          5  
                                                          This quote that you love posting says nothing about one group of people or everyone. It says that it must be general and not local. That means that it should not be available in one section of the country but not in another. It also specifically states that is must be throughout the union and not to a particular spot. Maybe you should go to your link abour reading comprehension. Federal programs ARE available thoughout the country and is for anyone with a need to use, even wingnut neocons.
                                                          Report Abuse
                                      • Author by peebs755 (February 17, 2010 5:04 pm ET)
                                        8  
                                        Right now there is a libertarian paradise. Its called Somalia. Every libertarian principle is being demonstrated there right now. Check it out.
                                        Report Abuse
                                        • Author by DellDolly (February 18, 2010 4:13 am ET)
                                          5  
                                          You nailed it.

                                          Libertarian ideals, while some may be okay in theory (and I am not sure that I can even say that I truly believe that they are sound theories in make-believe land, but...) don't work at all in real life.

                                          We have laws licensing people to drive cars and operate vehicles and operate safe vehicles safely, for example.

                                          Are you aware that the 2004 Libertarian Presidential candidate didn't have a license on his car because he didn't believe that the state had a right to force him to license his car, since it wasn't involved in regular interstate commerce? Or that they think that individuals should be able to mint their own money, and somehow FORCE businesses to take it? Or that the free market will regulate that money exchange, so as to punish people who might trade in "money" that's not really worth anything? Or that we should drive on a system of privately-owned roads? And if someone didn't maintain their privately-owned road well enough, well then people would just choose the next guy's road to pay tolls on to drive on?

                                          It's crazy talk. Absolute lunacy.
                                          Report Abuse
                                • Author by princeofwheels (February 17, 2010 3:03 pm ET)
                                  1  
                                  Do you happen to have or have seen the unedited videos?
                                  Also, why won't they release them to the public? They had no problem releasing the edited versions?

                                  Isn't that the point of this post?
                                  If you can't answer those questions, why are you on this thread?

                                  I,personaaly understand your need to keep trying to prove your uselss point about yourself and conism but why here?

                                  Do you have the videos? yes or no.

                                  Report Abuse
                                • Author by The_Cat (February 18, 2010 11:44 am ET)
                                  4 1
                                  But, MagCynic, you are NOT conservative, and neither is Glenn Beck.

                                  Had the founding fathers been conservative, as you insist, they would have supported King George III, and we'd still be a motley collection of colonies.
                                  Report Abuse
                          • Author by DellDolly (February 17, 2010 4:07 pm ET)
                            7 2
                            Con trolls come here to derail threads to prevent the reasonable discussion of the errors and omissions of the media.

                            Just like FoxNews and Rush Limbaugh and Republican leaders in Congress don't exist to draw negative attention to themselves. Their raison d'etre is to oppose everything that Obama and Democrats do, and to use every trick in the book to derail everything they can that Dems try. And one of the ways they do that is through pushing of nonsense that makes us NOT talk about what we should be talking about.

                            For example, death panels. The things they called death panels were actually a great idea which Dems were pushing for. They couldn't let us let people know how great an idea it was, so they twisted it up and changed the meaning of hte whole initiative.

                            Another example - John Kerry's military record. Any fair examination of his record versus Bush's record would have derailed Bush's candidancy for re-election. So they couldn't let that happen.

                            If you don't recognize that con trolls aren't here to get the negative attention, but rather to satisfy their underlying goal of derailing and poisoning the national discourse we SHOULD be having on issues of great importance, you need to learn that today.

                            Their underlying goal is toxic to America, and you're feeding that goal by giving them negative attention!!!
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by MagCynic (February 17, 2010 4:20 pm ET)
                                10
                              I'm sorry you feel that way. You're wrong by the way. You probably believe in many of the same things I do only you are too blinded by emotions to see it.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 17, 2010 4:21 pm ET)
                                10  
                                You're wrong by the way. You probably believe in many of the same things I do only you are too blinded by emotions to see it.
                                Wow. A new type of troll. A false consensus troll? We need to document this new species in the wild.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by MagCynic (February 17, 2010 4:45 pm ET)
                                    8
                                  And you won't let up will you? No matter what I say it's never enough, is it? Fact: from the things you have listed in this thread alone I can tell we would agree on many things politically. You simply can't help yourself enough with your insults to see this.
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 17, 2010 4:57 pm ET)
                                    7  
                                    from the things you have listed in this thread alone I can tell we would agree on many things politically
                                    Wrong. You don't get to co-opt liberal values and the falsely define progressives to create an "other" you can rail about. Take it from this liberal/progressive, Beck's attempts to define us are based on lies. We know this because we know our own beliefs and motives. You should stick to trying to convince independents that we're the bogey man. It won't work here because we know you are full of it.
                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by MagCynic (February 17, 2010 5:24 pm ET)
                                        7
                                      I guess you truly will never let up, will you? Even after I'm saying - in all seriousness - we would most likely agree on many things politically. You're just another partisan.
                                      Report Abuse
                                      • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 17, 2010 5:47 pm ET)
                                        6  
                                        Even after I'm saying - in all seriousness - we would most likely agree on many things politically
                                        I don't care if you think we agree. If you do really believe in the things I believe in then you could never follow a mental deficient and confirmed liar, like Glen Beck. He's using you. It's pretty sick actually.
                                        Report Abuse
                                      • Author by Bongo Fury (February 17, 2010 7:27 pm ET)
                                        7  
                                        In the world of truth,the man with one fact is king.Read the damn Patriot Act wannabe Beck.It's a tough read but there is nothing liberal in it.When you accuse the left of screwing things up,consider who wrote this total travesty to the Constitution or STFU.
                                        Report Abuse
                                      • Author by mookie von zipper (February 18, 2010 9:26 am ET)
                                          4
                                        jeez, mag, this is quite the exchange... you and newbee should have your own show!...

                                        what this has demonstrated is that while there are a lot of superficial differences between ideologies, it tends to blur the reality that you're right... lib/progs and cons do share basic principles of beliefs but they tend to be obscured when it comes down to specific issues...

                                        take personal liberty... we all agree on that in principle... but not when it comes to, say, the concept of the nanny state or sexual freedom (you can guess which political hacks are for and against each)...

                                        and finally, i am a big fan of the "separation of church and state" being bogus, totally bogus... the establishment clause of the first amendment clearly states CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW...

                                        Report Abuse
                                  • Author by RKAllen (February 17, 2010 5:01 pm ET)
                                    10  
                                    Mag,

                                    If you don't feel like NewBee's repsonses deserve a retort then you can simply hit the little grey triangle next to his post and make it go away.

                                    The simple truth is that I and several other posters have made substantive responses to your posts without being insulting or condescending.

                                    However, you have chosen the route of "victim" by responding only to those who you feel are antagonizing you.

                                    It is hard to buy your victim defense when you willingly and repeatedly walk into someone elses fist.
                                    Report Abuse
                              • Author by peebs755 (February 17, 2010 5:06 pm ET)
                                10  
                                No. Conservatives claim to believe in the constitution, but try to tear it up every chance they get.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by Bongo Fury (February 17, 2010 8:40 pm ET)
                                  5  
                                  Shrub said it's just a goddam piece of paper and the Patriot Act showed he meant it.How anyone can call themselves conservative after those nightmarish 8 years is beyond my ken.
                                  Report Abuse
          • Author by So Fain (February 17, 2010 12:58 pm ET)
            6  
            Idiot.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by MagCynic (February 17, 2010 12:10 pm ET)
        1 15
        Unbelievable how oblivious most of you all to logic.

        "In short... no, I don't hold an entire organization responsible for the actions of a few low level employees. "
        - If stories kept on popping up about low level BK employees bathing in kitchen sinks you would start to wander. That's why I asked how many would it take. Probably not one or two. One hundred? Would that get your attention?

        "I don't understand your point. "
        - So you'd be OK if a story broke in which they caught 100 low level, hourly BK employees bathing in kitchen sinks? You wouldn't think any less of the company as a whole simply because the act was done by low level employees?

        "The only evidence you have is this obviously deceptively doctored video?"
        - I don't have any evidence. It's not by case or video. Not sure why you bothered typing that out even.

        "I think i'll call you MR NON SEQUITUR... "
        - Like I said above. You'd be OK with 100 BK employees bathing in kitchen sinks. It wouldn't change your opinion of the BK company as a whole at all, right?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© (February 17, 2010 12:31 pm ET)
          16  
          If stories kept popping up...

          So this is your excuse for proceeding with your silly analogy in the absence of reliable evidence against ACORN?

          Yet you still segue right into:

          You'd be OK with 100 BK employees bathing in kitchen sinks.

          That's not logic, it's logical fallacy. I'd accuse you of wasting our time, but your attempts at argument are actually entertaining.
          ~
          Report Abuse
          • Author by MagCynic (February 17, 2010 12:54 pm ET)
            1 14
            No. It was simply a response to people who claim that it's not indicative of the entire company when a low level employee does something wrong. It wasn't necessarily about the whole ACORN case in general.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by So Fain (February 17, 2010 12:59 pm ET)
              11  
              Once again, what are these "low level employees" of ACORN guilty of?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by MagCynic (February 17, 2010 1:05 pm ET)
                  14
                Facilitating prostitution? That's not really my point. Everyone seems to want to pretend to ignore what they may or may not have done and not even bother with investigating it more simply because they were low level employees and not high ranking officials.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by So Fain (February 17, 2010 1:07 pm ET)
                  16 1
                  No one facilitated any prostituion. NEXT! Give us some FACTS, clown.

                  You couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag. This is easy.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 17, 2010 1:08 pm ET)
                    12 1
                    You couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag.
                    ...Even it was tissue paper.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by foghornleghorn (February 17, 2010 6:20 pm ET)
                      6  
                      Mags is obviously more concerned with a fictional underage sex slave ring than he is with the REAL underage sex slave ring going on right now by Blackwater.
                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by MagCynic (February 17, 2010 1:31 pm ET)
                      12
                    You're trying to argue against me about something I'm not even arguing about. And you all continue to ignore the point I am repeatedly making. Here's how it sounds to me:

                    Me: You shouldn't ignore an organization simply because something wrong was done by a low level employee.
                    MMFA: PROVE ACORN DID ANYTHING WRONG!!!!!!!
                    Me: That's not really what concerns me. That's not the point I'm making.
                    MMFA: HA! YOU CAN'T DUMB CONSERVATIVE TEA BAGGER. I OWN YOU AT ARGUING JAJAJAJA!
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 17, 2010 1:34 pm ET)
                      12 1
                      You think you are arguing with MMFA itself? You are even crazier then you seemed on first assessment.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (February 18, 2010 2:45 am ET)
                        6  
                        You gotta admit, MagCynic does a lot better when it gets to make up the other side of the argument.

                        I usually get a laugh out of this poster, but I'm actually starting to feel pity for MC. This is one of the most fail-y battles I've seen a wingnut wage in a while.
                        Report Abuse
                • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 17, 2010 1:07 pm ET)
                  13  
                  They didn't do anything besides humor an obviously fake pimp and hooker. I suppose if it were a conservative organization, they would have produced a shotgun and shot them on site. Or, perhaps, they would have taken them into a back room for a good water boarding.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by So Fain (February 17, 2010 1:09 pm ET)
                    11  
                    They weren't a fake pimp and prostitute! They were dressed as respectable, everyday dorks. Without O'Keefe's uncut video, we can use none of it as evidence. Therefore, there is NO EVIDENCE of anything having to do with prostituion.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 17, 2010 1:13 pm ET)
                      11  
                      They were pretending to be a pimp and hooker. I don't think that is disputed.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by congero6189599 (February 17, 2010 2:09 pm ET)
                        10  
                        Although the women was dressed provacatively it is being disputed that O'keefe was dressed as or presented himself to ACORN employees as her pimp.
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by MadRiver Jack (February 17, 2010 3:32 pm ET)
                        2  
                        That doesn't seem so obvious. The edited tape makes it seem to be the case but the doctoring of the "evidence" throws everything into doubt.
                        Report Abuse
                • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 17, 2010 3:53 pm ET)
                  11  
                  "Everyone seems to want to pretend to ignore what they may or may not have done and not even bother with investigating it more" - Mag

                  No, we want to investigate it. Let's investigate it. Oh, but no one can be allowed to actually see the actual evidence and look at the unedited video tapes. Why is that again? Oh, because your hero O'Keefe and his boss, Breitbart, will not let anyone analyze the actual videos. Clearly, this would tell any thinking, rational brain that they have no intention of participating in any actual investigation of evidence. They only want to convince simple minds to believe their chosen narrative. Isn't that obvious? Don't you feel silly forcing us to show you how obvious these facts are. Let us know when you're serious.
                  Report Abuse
        • Author by Ruby (February 17, 2010 12:46 pm ET)
          14  
          Have 100 Acorn offices been found guilty of any wrongdoing? In short, the answer is no.

          But of course, none of this actually addresses the point of this post. I condemn the boneheaded actions of those few low-level acorn employees.

          But at the same time, all of this evidence piling up about how deceptive Breitbart and O'Keefe have been when it comes to this video, combined of course with the fact that the videos that were released have clearly been heavily edited, on top of the fact that Breitbart and O'Keefe vehemently refuse to release the unedited tapes, wrapped up with the fact that O'Keefe was just arrested in New Orleans for entering a federal building under false pretenses and Breitbart can't seem to get his story straight about it....none of this makes you question the character or credibility of either of them? Because you're basing your condemnation of the entire organization of ACORN off of the few, heavily edited tapes released by O'Keefe and Breitbart who have displayed some bizarre behavior, to say the least, and downright manipulative and intentionally deceptive beavior at worst.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by RKAllen (February 17, 2010 12:48 pm ET)
          13  
          If stories kept on popping up about low level BK employees bathing in kitchen sinks you would start to wander. That's why I asked how many would it take. Probably not one or two. One hundred? Would that get your attention?
          Wouldn't matter if one employee bathed in one sink in one location or many employees bathed in every sink in every location. It has nothing to do with Burger King's policy regarding the sanitation of their facilities. At no time would Burger have ever permitted or allowed with prior knowledge for employees to bathe in a company sink.

          I think you are trying to ask if I would go into my local Burger King if I had heard that employees were caught bathing in sinks in other locations. I will nswer as I have before. I do not hold a company accountable for the actions and behaviors of people at the lowest levels of the organization. I also do not hold the employees at my local restaurant responsible for the irresponsible actions of others either.

          The very idea is absurd.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by RKAllen (February 17, 2010 12:55 pm ET)
            12  
            Great... now I am hungry for Burger King... :(
            Report Abuse
          • Author by MagCynic (February 17, 2010 12:56 pm ET)
              17
            Then you are foolish. The repeated pattern of low level employees ARE an indication of how a company is run overall. One or two bad eggs getting through is one thing. If a pattern emerged though you'd be stupid not to think something is going on within the company as a whole.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 17, 2010 1:01 pm ET)
              9  
              The repeated pattern of low level employees ARE an indication of how a company is run overall.
              Maybe for you. However, we know you are a Beck-loving freak so your opinion is evaluated within that context.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by So Fain (February 17, 2010 1:03 pm ET)
              17  
              What about the repeated pattern of O'keefe and Breitbart? They actually BROKE THE LAW as well as displayed a pattern of deception and low morals with the editing of the pimp video. THAT's okay but ACORN is evil?

              Hypocrite.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by Ruby (February 17, 2010 1:47 pm ET)
              14  
              I've posted this already above, but I'm replying to you again down here, just because I have a really difficult time getting you to respond to me. You seem to be very indignant when people "name-call" or are "illogical" in their posts, yet those seem to be the only posters you reply to. My posts, which I think are always rational and definitely always polite, are completely ignored. This behavior confuses me.

              Have 100 Acorn offices been found guilty of any wrongdoing? In short, the answer is no.

              But of course, none of this actually addresses the point of this post. I condemn the boneheaded actions of those few low-level acorn employees.

              But at the same time, all of this evidence piling up about how deceptive Breitbart and O'Keefe have been when it comes to this video, combined of course with the fact that the videos that were released have clearly been heavily edited, on top of the fact that Breitbart and O'Keefe vehemently refuse to release the unedited tapes, wrapped up with the fact that O'Keefe was just arrested in New Orleans for entering a federal building under false pretenses and Breitbart can't seem to get his story straight about it....none of this makes you question the character or credibility of either of them? Because you're basing your condemnation of the entire organization of ACORN off of the few, heavily edited tapes released by O'Keefe and Breitbart who have displayed some bizarre behavior, to say the least, and downright manipulative and intentionally deceptive beavior at worst.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 17, 2010 1:55 pm ET)
                8 2
                My posts, which I think are always rational and definitely always polite, are completely ignored. This behavior confuses me.
                Stop being confused. Cons don't respond to rhetorical grace. They respond to being punched in the nose. I use to try to convince them with linguistic flourishes but abandoned that strategy when they simply ignored my extremely salient points.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 17, 2010 4:10 pm ET)
                9 1
                You seem to be very indignant when people "name-call" or are "illogical" in their posts, yet those seem to be the only posters you reply to. - Ruby

                Those are the only ones he has answers to, Ruby. Mag does not have an answer for how Beck can be a conservative while wanting to do away with the separation of church and state. He has to go back and listen to Beck and re-remember how that is supposed to make sense in his head. Any reasonable person would NEVER think of Beck as conservative. He is anything but.

                Mag does not know how to answer why ACORN has not been convicted of any wrongdoing. He has to go back and listen to Beck so he can remember how to answer that one. He does not know why he still believes the O'Keefe tapes are evidence of anything even though they have been proven to be unreliable, heavily edited, and misrepresented. Beck and Fox will not touch that one, so Mag does not know how he thinks about it until he is told how to think about it.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by DellDolly (February 17, 2010 4:13 pm ET)
                6 1
                He doesn't reply because he's not trying to have a discussion on the facts.

                He's trying to derail the conversation, trying to get us to waste time debunking his nonsense, so that we don't actually talk about the important subjects.

                He's poisoning the debate. That's why Obama objected to FoxNews being considered a legit news organization - because they're toxic to the national discouse!

                And when posters like NewBee allow the Glenn Beck fan to lead him around by the nose, all the while whining that 'don't feed the troll messages don't work', NewBee is actually the best buddy of the Glenn Beck fan. Because that Glenn Beck fan wants to derail the conversation. He KNOWS that his argument is full of holes, but he just wants to keep leading him down tangent after tangent, garnering negative attention all the time, and not helping this site at all.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 17, 2010 4:31 pm ET)
                  6  
                  ...lead him around by the nose, all the while whining that 'don't feed the troll messages don't work'
                  Nobody leads me anywhere. If there weren't rubes like Mag to come here and thump, then what would the thread be? A bunch of dittos? Boring.

                  I never said that ignoring the trolls doesn't work. I said that telling people to ignore the trolls doesn't work because someone inevitably will respond to them. It's human nature.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by RKAllen (February 17, 2010 2:06 pm ET)
              16  
              The I would ask you, citing examples from the O'Keefe tapes, to show us the "pattern" that reveals ACORN to be a criminal organization that encourages the illegal importation and funding of houses of prostitution.

              before you begin, I will remind you, we only know of seven(?)tapes...

              - One of those tapes is completely bogus after it was revealed that the ACORN employee had "play acted" along with the absurd story that Hannah and James were pushing.

              - One of the locations he went into had called the police, so that office is really absolved of any wrong doing and to date nothing improper or illegal on the part of employees at that office have been presented by O'Keefe.

              - One location, the recorded employee making suggestions about where to cross the border actually got in contact with a Federal agent who investigates human trafficing. This proves that the employee never intended to assist O'Keefe in anyway.

              - And the last tape that I have seen released by O'Keefe the employee said that anything the two of them wish to do with ACORN must be legitimate, absolving that location of any wrong doing.

              If there have been other tapes released since this last one, I have not seen them... but, to ask my question again. You keep asking about a pattern on the part of employees. What about the pattern I have now listed twice in this thread that shows behavior of ACORN employees that show them making the right decisions or doing the right thing?

              Why do you choose to ignore those examples and focus on a "pattern" of behavior that you believe is more damning to the organization even though its examples are not as extensive as O'Keefe would have you believe?
              Report Abuse
            • Author by princeofwheels (February 17, 2010 3:09 pm ET)
              1  
              Are you saying that the Republican Party should be judged solely on the words of Limbaugh or Beck or the child molesters which have been numerous within the party? Just asking.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by MrPlow99 (February 17, 2010 12:49 pm ET)
          16  
          Unbelievable how oblivious most of you all [sic] to logic.


          You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by ConstanceRifleII (February 17, 2010 12:53 pm ET)
          9  
          "- Like I said above. You'd be OK with 100 BK employees bathing in kitchen sinks. It wouldn't change your opinion of the BK company as a whole at all, right?"

          Jeez, of course it would. But in any case, it's not a valid analogy for what you are trying to get across about ACORN.

          1) 100 BK employees? How many ACORN employees did O'Keefe talk to? A dozen at most? You invalidate your point by saying "That's why I asked how many would it take. Probably not one or two. One hundred? Would that get your attention?" There were 4 videos. show me 96 more then I will agree that ACORN should be denied their funding.

          2) Nobody at ACORN did anything really wrong...especially in the legal sense. You do know that most of them went to the police after the incident, right?

          3) "The only evidence you have is this obviously deceptively doctored video?'
          - I don't have any evidence. It's not by case or video. Not sure why you bothered typing that out even."
          They were talking about ACORN video. How hard is that to understand?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by MagCynic (February 17, 2010 1:00 pm ET)
              14
            My god, people! Stop taking what I say literally!

            It originally started as an analogy when people were saying the actions of a few low level employees weren't indicative of ACORN overall. My point is that it should be. There were enough videos of them doing questionable things to at least merit a looksy. I believe ACORN might have done an internal investigation and fired some people so that's something good at least.

            "They were talking about ACORN video. How hard is that to understand? "
            - That's what I WAS referring to. Someone told me, "The only evidence YOU have" as if my life depended on whether or not ACORN went on trial for this.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 17, 2010 1:04 pm ET)
              12  
              My god, people! Stop taking what I say literally!
              How else is supposed to be taken?

              It originally started as an analogy when people were saying the actions of a few low level employees weren't indicative of ACORN overall.
              They aren't. If it were, Fox News would have been driven out of business years ago for their support of the certifiable psycho by the name of Glen Beck.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by So Fain (February 17, 2010 1:06 pm ET)
              15  
              You keep talking about ACORN's pattern but you ignore O'Keefe and Breitbart's pattern of deception. By your logic, you should be attacking them right along with ACORN but you ignore any wrongdoing by them.

              You're just another Fox shill who is chasing his own tail.

              Go away, Fox Zombie.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by MagCynic (February 17, 2010 1:33 pm ET)
                1 13
                My, God! It continues. I'm not even talking about FNC or O'Keefe or Breitbart and yet I'm asked to talk about them now? I'm done with this thread.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 17, 2010 1:35 pm ET)
                  13 1
                  I'm done with this thread.
                  Elvis has left the building. Everyone exhale.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by Ruby (February 17, 2010 1:58 pm ET)
                  11  
                  Okay, but Mag, the topic of this thread is O'Keefe and Breitbart, who are, of course, completely relevant to any discussion of the infamous ACORN video tapes.

                  --You made the analogy of, "if 100 BK employees were caught bathing in the sink..." and then when that analogy was proven a false one, because there have not been 100 ACORN workers found guilty of any wrongdoing, you kind of flipped a little bit. Here's the point: If a BK employee was caught bathing in the sink, that employee should be fired. The handful of ACORN employees that were caught engaging in some questionable behavior (but nothing illegal, note) were fired by ACORN. If BK fires an employee for bathing in the sink, that should be a clear indication of the fact that BK as an overall corporation does not endorse this activity. The fact that ACORN fired the employees in question and conducted their own internal investigation of the matter seems to indicate, clearly, that ACORN does not condone these actions. Furthermore, congress voted to withhold funding from ACORN until they can make sure all is taken care of. I think ACORN has been sufficiently "looked at".

                  --Now, back to what I was saying earlier. Breitbart and O'Keefe are definitely relevant to any discussion of these ACORN tapes, because they are the creators/promoters of them. Now the facts are this: the ACORN tapes are clearly heavily edited, Breitbart and O'Keefe vehemently refuse to release the unedited versions, Breitbart and O'Keefe seemingly intentionally misled the public about some of the details of these tapes (i.e. the pimp costume), O'Keefe was recently arrested in La. for entering a federal building under false pretenses and Breitbart can't seem to get his story straight about it (can't even seem to figure out whether or not he actually pays O'Keefe's salary). I think we can safely say that the credibility of these two is, at the very least, questionable, if not all together non-existent. I don't think we should base any serious conclusions about the nature of ACORN as an organization off of anything produced by these two shady characters.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by congero6189599 (February 17, 2010 2:17 pm ET)
                    13 1
                    The withholding of funds to ACORN was overturned in Federal Court as being unconstitutional.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by jpeagle21 (February 19, 2010 4:39 pm ET)
                        2
                      For now. ACORN is under investigation by the Government Accountability Office for misuse of federal funds.
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (February 18, 2010 2:54 am ET)
                  3  
                  My, God! It continues. I'm not even talking about FNC or O'Keefe or Breitbart and yet I'm asked to talk about them now?


                  MagCynic, Attorney at Law

                  My, God! It continues. I'm not even talking about my client, the defendant, who was witnessed committing a murder. I'm trying to focus on the witness, who got 2 parking tickets last year. and yet I'm asked to talk about the defendant?
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by kcboomer (February 17, 2010 2:58 pm ET)
                1
              Mag, you're beating your head against a brick wall with these people. They don't want to acknowledge the "bad advice" the ACORN employees gave. Someone even mentioned they were "humoring" O'Keefe. (I guess they must have had a conference call to get all those offices in on the joke.) They want to sidestep the bigger issue of not just one or two people contributing advice to potentially illegal activities, but many people. If one or two people from H&R Block gave advice to people to lie on their taxes it would be considered a few "bad apples", but when it is repeated over and over again, it becomes a company problem. Now they want to divert attention from the "bad advice" to how O'Keefe was dressed.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by The_Cat (February 18, 2010 11:51 am ET)
              3  
              It originally started as an analogy when people were saying the actions of a few low level employees weren't indicative of ACORN overall. My point is that it should be.
              -MagCynic

              Excellent. If that is the case, then I suggest you leave off badgering ACORN, and turn your sights on the Republican Party itself. Child prostitution, adultery, bribery, homosexuality, fraud, pandering, almost every conceivable degrading thing humans do to each other has been done by an elected member of the Republican Party. Based on your own logic, that makes the entire organization guilty. Go git em!
              Report Abuse
              • Author by The_Cat (February 18, 2010 11:52 am ET)
                3  
                (editor's note: I do not consider homosexuality immoral or unsavory, but knowing how Faux Cons feel about it, I included it in this list. I hope I have not accidentally offended anyone by so doing.)
                Report Abuse
        • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 17, 2010 12:58 pm ET)
          12  
          A more apt analogy would be for a fake pimp and hooker to go into Burger King and order some big macs "to feed my bitches". Then, you'd have to have the media get worked up about the Burger King's employees facilitating a criminal enterprise.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 17, 2010 1:05 pm ET)
            10  
            Make that Whoppers instead of Big Macs. I'm a vegetarian. I don't eat much fast food.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by MadRiver Jack (February 17, 2010 3:29 pm ET)
          3  
          Were the abuses @ Abu Ghraib the work of a few low-level soldiers or should it be seen as an indictment of the entire USA military?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by peebs755 (February 17, 2010 5:07 pm ET)
          6  
          No, we're just waiting for you to use some. You keep using non-sequitors.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by EmacsRazor (February 17, 2010 3:27 pm ET)
        1  
        How would you all react if a story got out that a Burger King employee in Ohio was taking baths in the kitchen sinks?

        This very flawed compairison/argument is straight out of ole Becktards mouth. Typical Glenn Beck argument, "The streets are wet, therefore it rained."

        Someone that works for a fast food chain taking a bath in the sink is an anomaly. (So maybe it's an accurate depiction of ACORN :))

        Anyway, how many, at this very moment, "low level" Burger King employees do you think overcharge customers and skim the register? Hmmmm??? Does this change your opinion of Burger King? Is it happening at all locations? Is it 50, 100 employees? Does this mean that the CEO is a crook? Is Burger King a corrupt company?

        Not "rhetorical", may be "retarded" (Sorry Sarah) questions MagCynic.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 17, 2010 3:37 pm ET)
        11  
        Of course not. Are you suggesting that it is Burger King policy to wash yourself in the sink? What the heck are you even babbling about? And what does that have to do with the fact, yes FACT, that your hero O'Keefe is a proven charlatan.

        What if O'Keefe, a journalist(?), was proven to have edited videos to present a narrative rather than to expose any facts? What if O'Keefe was proven to have misrepresented, even to his defenders, how he presented himself in a video? What if he did this in two videos? How about ten? Would you think differently of his reporting and your heros who still attempt to defend him? What if he was caught misrepresenting himself in a federal building, and into a Senator's office? What if he tried to excuse that by suggesting that the Senator's office is the "people's" and he should be allowed to misrepresent himself and sneak in under false pretenses? How many offices would he need to do this in before you began to doubt the falsehoods you are being spoonfed by Fox News and hate radio?

        O'Keefe and Breitbart refuse to offer up ANY videos for inspection. They show you only a lame attempt at a Daily Show interview and you take it as evidence of something. Don't you hold your own judgements and opinions to a higher threshold than this? Are you so partisan that you never consider the source before running wild with such unproven nonsense? I mean these are all rhetorical of course.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (February 17, 2010 11:41 am ET)
      15 1
      I admit that I fell for the story but I never believed anyone at ACORN thought he was really a pimp. To me it made O'Keefe look stupid rather than the ACORN workers.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by jonesjax2374 (February 17, 2010 7:59 pm ET)
        8  
        I was shocked at his juvenile "diguise." It was like a high school kid from a hick town pretending to be black. It was appallingly immature and unconvincing and just made me cringe. So I'm glad he didn't wear it in the offices. Kid thinks hes some investigative genuis but he's just another loser felon, which means he'll get a show on Fox.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by edgewaterprog (February 17, 2010 11:44 am ET)
      17 1
      Fox against ACORN is a typical of the corporate conservative elites trying to destroy organizations whose purpose is to advocate for the poor and alienated of society.

      In this season of Lent, maybe Fox and their nominally "Christian" TV personalities should reread the Gospels and consider whom Christ would stand with.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Steve P (February 17, 2010 12:25 pm ET)
      16 1
      Just shows how the GOP will distort the truth into what they want it to be. The article is correct though where a high % of people truly believe O'keefe went into the offices dressed like a pimp. This is why I am disgusted with the MSM because they dupe the American people all the time with Fox news at the very top of distortion.

      The GOP proclaimed O'keefe a hero after the Accorn stunt and just a kid doing a prank at the Senator's office...Like Glenn Beck they have different answers for the same type of thing
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Midnight Kevin (February 17, 2010 1:09 pm ET)
      14  
      "I'm one of the whitest guys ever. I just wear ridiculous stuff and put people in ridiculous situations."

      Does that mean O'Keefe believed his getup to be "black"? Seems to me he has a warped view of minorities...
      ----------------------------------
      The Midnight Review
      Report Abuse
    • Author by RedBullBear (February 17, 2010 1:16 pm ET)
      1  
      I think it's obvious what O'Keefe was intending to do at Landrieu's office. They were going to bug the lines and then try to get her office to do/say something stupid on the phones like they did ACORN.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by bigwillsmall (February 17, 2010 1:23 pm ET)
      1  
      Surely there is something prosecutable about this. If not it is one of the high crimes that go unpunished in our corrupt country.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by princeofwheels (February 17, 2010 3:18 pm ET)
      1  
      I will say it here and now..

      If ordered by law to produce the unedited tapes, I predict that they no longer exist. Liars always lie. And the Publisher and the 25 year old kid are liars.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by fantagor (February 17, 2010 4:01 pm ET)
      10 1
      I applaud Fox's diligence in this matter. Anything to distract the conservative noise machine from focusing on salient issues. Please, more ACORN stories, 24/7! Meanwhile, healthcare will pass, the jobs bill will pass, the economy will improve and the GOP will have nothing to run on but a dead story about a non-pimp harassing some workers.

      Randy
      Report Abuse
      • Author by fantagor (February 17, 2010 4:20 pm ET)
        7 1
        The negative troll has been busy. That's one job created or saved by the MMfA stimulus.

        Randy
        Report Abuse
    • Author by buddhaedi (February 17, 2010 10:52 pm ET)
      1  
      From the short footage that I caught on TV, I got the impression that the ACORN people were trying to get the pimp and his ho on the TAX wagon, just like every cash worker should be. Their advise was priceless, you can't list "pimp" or "whore" as a legit occupation on your 1040.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by janeyre (February 18, 2010 12:57 am ET)
      1  
      Are all Republicans stupid or just evil?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Schwartz5534 (February 19, 2010 4:49 am ET)
         
      I, for one, never thought Mr. O'Keefe was actually wearing the pimp costume into the offices; although in retrospect I could see how one could mistake the cutaway shots as actually being part of the video. (Being that it was obviously not Mr. O'Keefe filming those cutaways, I thought it was clear that this was an altogether different filming, using emphatic methods to drive the point home.)

      I'm actually not sure what difference it makes though, really. The content of the conversation was more damning than any costume he may have worn. Seems a little bit nit-picky, Mr. Boehlert. You would not look so much like a shill if you stuck to the "highly edited videos" bit.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by billw8017 (February 20, 2010 1:04 am ET)
         
      My understanding is that the ACORN people didn't bother to make out any paperwork or otherwise spend too much time on this foolishness. What kind of financial advisor wants you to bury your money in the ground, anyway?
      Report Abuse