ACORN Release Video Attacking GOP Vote Suppression

[StefanZ]

Originally Posted by davidc

No, that's all I reqiered to prove once and for all how simplistic and partisan your brain really is.

OIC. You ask me for a simple "yes" or "no" answer, and then you call me names? I don't suppose that answering "no" would have changed your response, right?

Don't ask jackass questions, davidc.

So let me see if I get you right. Obama stays out of the way......McCain stops his campaign and rushes to Washington to be the leader he claims to be and ensure the passage of the bill.....but Obama is the socialist

I would say it's interesting to see how your mind works, but clearly it's something else at work.

Obama supported the bailout as well. McCain was posturing when he went to Washington, though Boehner credits McCain with the insertion of some accountability in the otherwise Democrat controlled bailout.

Personally, I understand the credit markets, and how crushing they are to the economy if halted. I waffle on this bailout, in that I don't want to see companies protected for reckless behaviour, and I don't want to see ACORN get a penny, and I don't want to see Obama, Frank, Dodd, or any other involved politician get a free pass. I wanted intervention in the credit markets, as happened. I didn't want the rest. Your charge is simplistic, and disingenuous.

But I also know that simply choosing to go pure capitalist cold turkey when stupid Socialist policy causes us to have a housing and credit crisis is very much like accepting a crack addict into rehab and cutting off drugs cold turkey.

It would kill them, just as the economy would die. You clearly don't understand that, and thought your immature game of "have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes or No!" would prove a point.

You're right. It proves you are what you claim I am.

[StefanZ]

And Tribal: there have been ACORN convictions already, "buddy".

ACORN workers convicted in Wisconsin and Colorado

Registered felons hired by ACORN in Milwaukee

http://www.petetheelder.com/?p=1038

Three of seven defendants in the biggest voter-registration fraud scheme in Washington history have pleaded guilty and one has been sentenced, prosecutors said Monday.

The defendants were all temporary employees of ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, when they allegedly filled out and submitted more than 1,800 fictitious voter-registration cards during a 2006 registration drive in King and Pierce counties.

http://thehill.com/letters/drug-war-...007-07-24.html

In May of this year, an article in the Kansas City (Mo.) Daily Record had the following headline: “Third ACORN worker pleads guilty to voter fraud.” The article said, “The third of four Kansas City voter-registration workers who were the subject of controversial indictment for voter-registration fraud just before the November 2006 election has pleaded guilty, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for Western Missouri announced.”
Last month, the same newspaper reported yet another conviction of voter registration fraud. And just this past Saturday, July 21, The Seattle Times reported two criminal investigations in Pierce and King counties of “hundreds of voter registration cards” that were turned in to elections officials in 2006 by ACORN.

Voter fraud remains a serious and persistent problem with ACORN. Last year’s election was hardly an anomaly.

If you don't think there will be any more, I will offer you a wager. The wager I offer is $10,000 versus your $1,000. Put up, or STFU.

Of course, you're likely just as scrupulous as a jihadist - not likely to pay on the bet. The bet is still offered, with a 10 to 1 advantage for you.

[StefanZ]

Bigger list of criminal charges, investigations and convictions of ACORN across the country:

http://www.rottenacorn.com/activityMap.html

[StefanZ]

You know one of the things I'm entertained with in this election cycle? Watching FactCheck.org attempt to keep up the appearances of neutrality in this ACORN issue, among others, even though their funding is wholly at the behest of the Annenberg Challenge.

[davidc]

Originally Posted by StefanZ

OIC. You ask me for a simple "yes" or "no" answer, and then you call me names? I don't suppose that answering "no" would have changed your response, right?

Don't ask jackass questions, davidc.



I would say it's interesting to see how your mind works, but clearly it's something else at work.

Obama supported the bailout as well. McCain was posturing when he went to Washington, though Boehner credits McCain with the insertion of some accountability in the otherwise Democrat controlled bailout.

Personally, I understand the credit markets, and how crushing they are to the economy if halted. I waffle on this bailout, in that I don't want to see companies protected for reckless behaviour, and I don't want to see ACORN get a penny, and I don't want to see Obama, Frank, Dodd, or any other involved politician get a free pass. I wanted intervention in the credit markets, as happened. I didn't want the rest. Your charge is simplistic, and disingenuous.

But I also know that simply choosing to go pure capitalist cold turkey when stupid Socialist policy causes us to have a housing and credit crisis is very much like accepting a crack addict into rehab and cutting off drugs cold turkey.

It would kill them, just as the economy would die. You clearly don't understand that, and thought your immature game of "have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes or No!" would prove a point.

You're right. It proves you are what you claim I am.

Stefan come on be real, BUSH started the bail out not the democrats, so by your simplistic view points the Bush administration is socialist. Stefan your problem is that you have no idea what socialism is! You have never lived it. You just drink the kool aid and repeat like a parrot the line being fed. You are so shallow you are transparent.

You can not claim socialism and then look the other way when the real socialists in this deal were the people you have always defended, Stefan the standards you have used to judged people here and call them socilist must be the same standards used when judging the republicans on this deal. You are the one who has always proved that you are the one you claim I am!

The reason I asked for a yes or no answer was to keep it simple, because it was obvious to me that that was all I needed, You see I knew your big simple one way brain would not see it coming, (did it?) You fell right into it just like I knew you would. You blindly rushed into what you thought was the obvious answer without realizing you were indicting your beloved Bush administration.

Stefan you can rationalize and project all you want but in the end this deal is a republican deal, Bush needed democrats to pass it, but to say it is a democratic deal is a lie! BUSH started it with fear mongering and rushed right through it with out a thought, or even a second opinion, like everything else this republican administration has done.

Here is another simple yes or no question so be careful it could be tricky.
Did McCain say he was dropping everything and rushing to Washington to ensure the bill was passed? Yes or no?

The republicans voted it down at first then after another 150B more was added they agreed to pass it. Or was that another B/S story by the "liberal news".

[StefanZ]

Originally Posted by davidc

Stefan come on be real, BUSH started the bail out not the democrats, so by your simplistic view points the Bush administration is socialist.

Yes - he has drifted this way, and I've said as much.

Stefan your problem is that you have no idea what socialism is! You have never lived it.

Did you, or did you not, emigrate from Cuba, davidc?

You just drink the kool aid and repeat like a parrot the line being fed. You are so shallow you are transparent.

Every post you offer is an insult. Quit it. Can't you see that I am quite civil towards people who don't post as you do?

You can not claim socialism and then look the other way when the real socialists in this deal were the people you have always defended, Stefan the standards you have to used judged people here as socilist must be the same standards used when judging the republicans on this deal. You are the one who has always proved that you are the one you claim I am!

Do I have to type slowly for you? I've already called most people who support this bailout Socialist to some degree - but that doesn't discount the very real and defensible position that there is no other way to jumpstart the credit markets without a cash infusion. It could be a loan, which isn't Socialist.

If the Government takes ownership positions with Banks, however, that passes Socialism directly and goes to Communism. Communism is State ownership of business. Do. Not. Want.

The reason I asked for a yes or no answer was to keep it simple, because it was obvious to me that that was all I needed, You see I knew your big simple one way brain would not see it coming, (did it?) You fell right into it just like I knew you would. You blindly rushed into what you thought was the obvious answer without realizing you were indicting your beloved Bush administration.

My God, davidc, don't be dense. I've labelled the Bush administration as very unConservative for a long time. Has it occurred to you that you're the simple one?

Stefan you can rationalize and project all you want but in the end this deal is a republican deal, Bush needed democrats to pass it, but to say it is a democratic deal is a lie!

Odd. Dodd and Frank wrote it. They're Democrats. Both parties wanted a bailout. One party wanted to remove a ton of fluff (for ACORN, ie), and the other didn't. The Dems had more power. This bill is laden with bullcrap.

BUSH started it with fear mongering and rushed right through it with out a thought, or even a second opinion, like everything else this republican administration has done.

This bill was rejected once, in favor of a reconsideration of the terms within. Reworked, it was significantly better, but still FOS.

Here is another simple yes or no question so be careful it could be tricky.
Did McCain say he was dropping everything and rushing to Washington to ensure the bill was passed? Yes or no?

McCain was posturing for political appearances.

The republicans voted it down at first then after another 150B more was added they agreed to pass it. Or was that another B/S story by the "liberal news".

[/quote]

First, read this story about Congressman Paul Ryan, who I know and support:

Ryan Shows Leadership in Bailout mess
Janesville Gazette Editorial 10-1-08:
"Congress needs true leadership to pass bailout"
OUR VIEWS
10A - Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Congress needs true leadership to pass bailout

This time, Congress must get it right.

Whenever Congress votes again on a revised emergency economic stabilization package, be it
tonight, Thursday or someday soon, it must pass the plan. The world is watching—from Asian markets to Main Street U.S.A. Many folks here in the Heartland can’t grasp why Congress should offer $700 billion of taxpayer money to bail out unscrupulous Wall Street entrepreneurs. They can’t understand why regulations weren’t in place to prevent this financial disaster.
But they can understand the pain of watching their retirement accounts and college savings
investments plunge like rocks in the river. Did it make sense to reject a $700 billion plan if the result was investors losing more than $1 trillion the same day?

Maybe you don’t need a car loan or home loan right now. But we all can understand the crisis when we see co-workers laid off and hear fears that some Wisconsin companies that rely on short-term borrowing to meet payrolls might not get the cash they need.

We need leadership. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Janesville, did an admirable job of leading a revolt against the blank check that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson wanted. Ryan led a small team that drafted an alternative to the three-page bill that Paulson proposed. The bill that Congress rejected by 23 votes Monday included many of Ryan’s provisions. It offered protections for taxpayers in the form of insurance and limits for executive pay.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., made a mistake by bringing the package to a vote. She
should have realized that she didn’t have the votes and that rejection would spark a panic-driven sell-off in the stock market.

On “The Stan Milam Show” Tuesday, Ryan said Pelosi was told that between 60 and 70 Republicans, no more than 72, would vote for the package. Sixty-five supported it.
Pelosi, too, should have kept quiet instead of blaming the Bush administration before the vote. Sure, the administration shares the blame. Ryan said as much Tuesday. But let’s set blame aside for now. There’s plenty to go around. Whatever revised plan returns for a vote, we hope it includes more provisions that Ryan suggested.

He has studied economics and understands them better than the folks on Main Street and most of his colleagues in Washington. Ryan says most constituents who contacted his office opposed the bailout. That’s understandable. But it’s really a misnomer to call it a Wall Street bailout. It’s about making money available to stabilize and restore confidence in the credit market here on Main Street. Banks need that money to keep the economy from seizing up.
“The easy thing for me to do was just go hide in my office and vote the political winds,” Ryan told Milam. Instead, Ryan voted for a bill he didn’t love because he knew it was the right thing to do for the good of the economy. Too many others—many of whom face tough re-election bids next month— voted with the political winds while silently hoping the bill would pass.

Next time, more members of Congress must show true leadership.

This bill wasn't going to pass in purist Conservative form. I know, because Ryan is a purist Conservative, and didn't have the power to have all he wanted in the bill, and none of what he didn't want.

Here's another one, from the Wall Street Journal - again about Paul Ryan, about his role in this bill:

[StefanZ]

From the Wall Street Journal

OCTOBER 3, 2008

What Leadership Looks Like
Voting for what's right, not what's safe.
If political leadership is hard to come by in Washington, it's because it invites political retribution. Just ask Republican Rep. Paul Ryan.

Mr. Ryan, perhaps the free market's truest friend in Congress, earlier this week voted to help rescue that free market. He hated the Paulson plan, but hated more the economic crash he is convinced will follow inaction. And in casting his "yes" vote on Monday, he knew what was coming: "The easiest thing would be to vote no and go hide in my office and watch the markets collapse. I will suffer politically for this, but I will sleep at night."

He was right. For his sin of acting to forestall economic mayhem, Mr. Ryan is being pilloried in Wisconsin, where he's in a competitive race. He's been accused of abandoning his conservative principles, of "caving" and "bailing out" Wall Street. He received 3,000 calls last week and wryly notes the "only one in favor came from Hank Paulson."

House Republicans spent this week justifying their positions on the failed bill, invoking taxpayers or credit markets or electoral pressures. Here's a better way to analyze votes: There were a few conservatives who for years took unpopular positions against the government-inspired credit mania, yet this week had the guts to act to calm the markets. And there were many Republicans who for years aided and abetted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, yet this week ran for political cover.

Mr. Ryan is among the former. As early as 2000 he was warning in House hearings that Fan and Fred were rushing into subprime loans and mortgage-backed securities, growing and concentrating their risk, and putting taxpayers on the hook. He's so vociferously called for more supervision that he was once stalked by a Fannie Mae lobbyist.

In 2002 he co-sponsored legislation that would have put these beasts under SEC accounting standards. Fan and Fred, and their congressional enablers, killed it in committee. In 2005 he signed on to a bill that would have subjected the giants to modest reform. The Fan-Fred alliance speared it in the Senate.

In 2007, Mr. Ryan opposed a proposal by Texas Republican Randy Neugebauer to gut systemic risk protections for the duo. It passed 383 to 36, with 162 Republicans voting for the companies. Many were the same members who this week thought it too politically risky to stabilize a market rocked by the very Fan-Fred privileges they granted.

The congressman was no fan of Mr. Paulson's plan, and initially rallied conservatives around a rival approach. When it became clear that the administration's approach was the only thing going, he spearheaded negotiations to rid it of its worst liberal elements and to include more taxpayer protections.

As credit spreads widened, he said he also realized this was a "Herbert Hoover moment, where he sat by and let a Wall Street crash turn into a Great Depression . . . There are times when free-markets stop and rational thinking goes out the window. It then isn't enough to be a laissez-faire conservative and let Rome burn . . . This bill is not perfect, but doing nothing is far worse than passing this bill."

Compare this to Mr. Ryan's GOP colleagues in Wisconsin. Jim Sensenbrenner and Tom Petri were among those 162 Republicans that let Fan and Fred bust the bank. Yet when this week's day of reckoning came, Mr. Petri complained it was a "half-baked plan," while Mr. Sensenbrenner declared he wouldn't "subsidize Wall Street." Oh, for this righteousness during the half-baked Fan-Fred subsidy days. And this from two guys in safe seats.

This has left Mr. Ryan alone to defend his position back home. It hasn't helped that his colleagues are spinning this as bravery, crowing that it was they who listened to constituents and they who acted on free-market principles. Never mind that these principles were nowhere in evidence back when it mattered. And never mind that should America crash, it will be the free market offered up as sacrifice to the regulatory mob.

It also hasn't helped that John McCain came out blaming this on Wall Street's "casino culture." Having initially placed this at the foot of the business community -- rather than at the foot of a political class that encouraged corporate excess -- Republicans fed into the left's line that this is a "bailout" of greedy executives. This has left grown-ups like Mr. Ryan struggling to explain the need to stabilize the financial system overall, and to protect Main Street from shedding its own blood.

Mr. Ryan is now busy sending out charts of Libor spreads to radio talk-show hosts (no joke), intent on explaining the seriousness of the crisis, and hopeful his credibility will see him through. "The best outcome is that [those of us who voted yes] take a political hit but avert a crisis," he says. How's that for leadership?

My thoughts, continued:

[StefanZ]

You should know that Nancy Pelosi's manipulation in Congress causes more losses in the Stock Market (read: to you and I) than the sum total of this bailout. She was the reason that the bill was voted down initially, and caused a subsequent 15% drop in the NYSE.

This bill isn't $850B as a blanket number; you're being misled by leftist talking points. In fact, this is a line-of-credit of sorts, with the first draw maxing out at $250B. The goal is relieve distressed credit markets and limit "golden parachutes". As the Treasury buys these "troubled mortgages", the hope is that the housing market recovers, at which point the Treasury can sell them for profit, hopefully paying itself back with interest (less tax burden).

Much of the $150B you mentioned is actually an AMT patch, which (wrongfully, IMO) is called an expense because it prevents millions of taxpayers from being whacked by a tax which shouldn't have targeted them with which to begin.

In truth, taxpayers are stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they do not allow the bill, the economy tanks, and with it goes pretty much all forms of investment. If the taxpayer accepts, it takes on the risk that these assets will not recover. If you're optimistic about a recovery of asset value, this won't hurt - but the Socialist/Interventionist precedent is angering.

Extricating ourselves from Socialism isn't an easy task.

[Tribal Dragon]

Originally Posted by StefanZ

And Tribal: there have been ACORN convictions already, "buddy".

ACORN workers convicted in Wisconsin and Colorado

Registered felons hired by ACORN in Milwaukee





If you don't think there will be any more, I will offer you a wager. The wager I offer is $10,000 versus your $1,000. Put up, or STFU.

Of course, you're likely just as scrupulous as a jihadist - not likely to pay on the bet. The bet is still offered, with a 10 to 1 advantage for you.

Is that the best you've got? I'm not seeing an ACORN conspiracy and high level ACORN folks being convicted. Please continue kicking your own ass.

[StefanZ]

Originally Posted by Tribal Dragon

Is that the best you've got? I'm not seeing an ACORN conspiracy and high level ACORN folks being convicted. Please continue kicking your own ass.

Oh...now it's high level ACORN folks...

Are you taking my bet based upon your original question, Tribal? Let's review:

I said ACORN is corrupt. You said "there are no convictions! This is all trumped up!" Find me convictions!"

I said: "Here are links to convictions." I then said, "and that's not all. I'll bet you 10 to 1 for my 10K to your 1K that there will be more convictions."

You said "I don't see any high level ACORN folks being convicted, and I don't see a conspiracy!".

I said: