The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[DaddyTorgo]

they can't make it work these days even when they rig the conditions for the test to where it's not-realistic.

it's not a (R) vs. (D) thing. It's a "this shit doesn't work yet so stop pissing off allies and enemies by threating to roll it out" thing. you can't back it up, so why threaten people with it?

[DaddyTorgo]

In 1993, SDI was reorganized as the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO). The more limited system, called the National Missile Defense (NMD), is intended to protect all 50 states from a rogue missile attack, but the deployment of such a system was forbidden under the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. Russia opposed the NMD plan but, under President Putin, also proposed a mobile, pan-European missile defense system with a similar purpose that would not violate the ABM treaty. In 2001, President George W. Bush called for accelerated development of the NMD system, and subsequently withdrew from the ABM treaty to permit the system's development and deployment. Apparently successful early tests of the U.S. system were later revealed to have occurred after the odds of success had been enhanced (1984, 1991). Subsequent tests were generally more successful, although flawed or limited in certain respects, but tests in 2002, 2004, and 2005 involved failures. In 2002, President Bush ordered the deployment of a modest missile defense system by 2004, with interceptors based at sea and at Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., and several interceptor missiles were emplaced by the end of 2004. Also in 2002, the BMDO was renamed the Missile Defense Agency (MDA). In addition to NMD, the MDA is also working to develop missile defenses for the battlefield as part of the Theater Missile Defense program.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

This seems to ignore successful tests for reasons I'm not sure why, except for political gain.


Strategic Defense Initiative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





Though it was claimed by some this last test was rigged:

It all depends how how you define success, that's why I said real life conditions. The successes have been achieved by doing things like eliminating dummy warheads, tuning warheads' radio frequency to match the interceptor, and only launching in perfect weather conditions. As far as I know there has never been a successful test under conditions we would expect in an actual missile launch. At this stage deployment is merely theatrical rather than operational.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

they can't make it work these days even when they rig the conditions for the test to where it's not-realistic.

To this I wonder...why?

We(i.e.NASA) send rockets to land (i.e. intercept) on meteors that are 100's of thousands of miles away. Yes, the meteros are larger but so are the amount of variables to consider for such a distance.

I don't have any real sense as to the worthwhile nature of such an endeavor and the likelihood of successful deployment if we "keep at it"...but I think it may be (admittedly anecdotally) reason enough to continue funding NASA development as it really seems to drive quite a bit of innovation and technology.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

I feel honored. But, in my defense, despite the fact you won't read it.

As far as my numbers go, I got them from Research 2000, who are an independent polling firm the same as Gallup or Pew Press. Yes, they do regular tracking polls for Daily Kos, but there numbers have been on the same wavelength as every other poll out there.

I will however note that PPP poll Cam is referring to also has a question asking if one thinks Obama is the Anti-Christ. Well, 8% said yes. 13% aren't sure. Among Republicans 14% said yes and 15% weren't sure. Also, it had a 48-46 split when asked who did you vote for in 2008, which is a bit different than the real results in NJ.

Also, there's a difference between saying "Obama's drop in approval has been in a large part due to attacks, true or not, on his policy" and the "protests of about 100,000 people nationwide attacking Obama has heavy strains of racism in it."

Third, I don't think anybody in this thread is a racist. Well, at least far back as I've read. The most extreme person in this thread, JoninMiddleGa seems to hate everyone, so he's out. Everybody else has attacked Obama on either ideological grounds or for idiotic reasons, not racial ones. However, this board is not exactly a symptom of a lot of this nation.

I haven't seen any state polls with approval ratings as high as 80%, or as low as 28%. Do you have links that show that the "northeast" as a whole, or the average of the states individually there is at 80%, or that the "south" is 28%?

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

If you can spend $100B today or wait until technology advances and pay $10B in 10 years- it's worth waiting. Even if you had a time machine and knew the future, it'd be like trying to manufacture wifi cell phones in the 80s- why do it then when it has limited uses and the infrastructure won't be there for decades.

SI

I understand the sentiment here, but this is a bit unrealistic, IMO. At least in real dollars and ratio of cost savings. If you're talking short term (under 5 years)...then maybe some degree of savings can be realized.

But if it is a particular(or a handful of) technology holding up a viable real-world application, which has a high degree of cross-market use cases which will drive it's development, then yes it(i.e. the tech) could still be more cost-effective in 'x' years but the relative costs of the technologies and expert labor for the items you do not need development of will continue to increase at least with inflation (and potentially exponentially if expertise moves out of the Strategic Missile Defense area to focus where the 'real' money is today).

IMHO, if you push it out 10 or more years I think you'll find labor and the other associated costs will dwarf the savings of some advances in technology...if not in a relative ratio, then certainly in real dollars. Doesn't mean you should launch something that doesn't work just because (I think) it might be cheaper today...but just saying it does not always work that way.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Hence my previous reference to the delusional state of existence.

NO YUO!!!ONEONoneoneoneone

[Flasch186]

Jon seems extra ornery today.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Jon seems extra ornery today.

{yawns}

"Now with even MORE ornery" ... sounds like the tag line for a potato chip commercial.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

House just voted with bipartisan support to strip all government funding from ACORN. Will now move to the Senate.

House votes to defund ACORN

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

House just voted with bipartisan support to strip all government funding from ACORN. Will now move to the Senate.

House votes to defund ACORN

good

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I post this not to score political points, but just as a bit of ironic whimsy.

Tea Party Protesters Protest D.C. Metro Service - Washington Wire - WSJ

The Texas Republican on Wednesday released a letter he sent to Washington’s Metro system complaining that the taxpayer-funded subway system was unable to properly transport protesters to the rally to protest government spending and expansion.

[sterlingice]

I know I laugh at the dumbest things but that just made my afternoon

SI

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I wonder what would happen if Steve and MBBF were to ever accidentally touch.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I wonder what would happen if Steve and MBBF were to ever accidentally touch.

The obvious. The universe would end.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I post this not to score political points, but just as a bit of ironic whimsy.

Tea Party Protesters Protest D.C. Metro Service - Washington Wire - WSJ

He was also horrified that people had to use private transportation (a taxi) to get to the event.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Insane overreaction to defund ACORN, but hey, it's just poor people that will be hurt. We already know they don't matter to 90% of politicians.

On balance I think ACORN does more good than harm and I've never really understood the hatred for the organization, but when videos like those surface they have to take their medicine. I'd demand the same thing happen to a conservative organization. I agree that some people are going to be hurt by this, but ACORN has to clean shop before they can expect taxpayer funds.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Glad you've got the thread covered, I've been looking forward to pissing on his grave for a number of years already.

Yeah, I'm probably going to go get about 3 super sized big gulps, and eat 2 dozen taco bell tacos that day. And get to work.

[stevew]

Assuming we can somehow get this latin heritage period to be an extended Cinco de Mayo type celebration, I'm definitely in favor. Cheap tacos and punch bowl margaritas ftw.

[flere-imsaho]

LOL. So I get an email from my local Rep, Mark Kirk (R-IL), who, by the way, is running for Obama's former Senate seat next year, and of course it's about ACORN.

What catches my eye, however, is the statement that since 1994 the government has given the outrageous sum of $53 million to ACORN. Which is just bad timing, because on the way home I heard this NPR story about how the government gives $1.2 BILLION each year in aggregate to very small airports around the country that service pretty much no one: Feds keep little-used airports in business - USATODAY.com

So yeah, clearly the folks at ACORN have made some bad decisions, and by now, if you accept at face value everything we've been told about ACORN (which is a stretch, but let's go with it for the sake of argument), it's clear the organization needs a pretty serious change in direction/oversight. But of course that ignores a lot of the good work the organization does. For $53 million over the course of 15 years. I mean, Bill Clinton and John Edwards spent more than that on haircuts. WTF?

I mean, a Wall Street company squanders that kind of money and it would be a rounding error. No one would care. We'd never even hear about it.

We gave billions to KBR and they constructed showers in Iraq that electrocuted American soldiers. AIG probably lost that much government money an hour while under duress. Fifty-three million is probably the amount of money the execs at Goldman Sachs siphoned off from the TARP funds for their own bonuses.

I mean sure, ACORN has some Grade A dipshits working for it and clearly and executive/oversight/management structure that's completely out to lunch. So the answer is to jettison the infant with the bathwater? Completely dump any of the good they do for a savings of roughly $3 million/year? What a fucking joke.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

LOL. So I get an email from my local Rep, Mark Kirk (R-IL), who, by the way, is running for Obama's former Senate seat next year, and of course it's about ACORN.

What catches my eye, however, is the statement that since 1994 the government has given the outrageous sum of $53 million to ACORN. Which is just bad timing, because on the way home I heard this NPR story about how the government gives $1.2 BILLION each year in aggregate to very small airports around the country that service pretty much no one: Feds keep little-used airports in business - USATODAY.com

So yeah, clearly the folks at ACORN have made some bad decisions, and by now, if you accept at face value everything we've been told about ACORN (which is a stretch, but let's go with it for the sake of argument), it's clear the organization needs a pretty serious change in direction/oversight. But of course that ignores a lot of the good work the organization does. For $53 million over the course of 15 years. I mean, Bill Clinton and John Edwards spent more than that on haircuts. WTF?

I mean, a Wall Street company squanders that kind of money and it would be a rounding error. No one would care. We'd never even hear about it.

We gave billions to KBR and they constructed showers in Iraq that electrocuted American soldiers. AIG probably lost that much government money an hour while under duress. Fifty-three million is probably the amount of money the execs at Goldman Sachs siphoned off from the TARP funds for their own bonuses.

I mean sure, ACORN has some Grade A dipshits working for it and clearly and executive/oversight/management structure that's completely out to lunch. So the answer is to jettison the infant with the bathwater? Completely dump any of the good they do for a savings of roughly $3 million/year? What a fucking joke.

You are very naive if you don't think they haven't benefitted immensely under Obama. They dictate a lot of federal poverty policy that is worth way more than $53 million. (In exchange obviously for considerable help from them during the election.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Yes. ACORN is secretly running the government!

Are you kidding? Do you really want to get self righteous on this? This isn’t going to be left wing talking points versus right wing (which I think you might think I am) talking points. I am very deeply up to date on St. Louis’s downtown politics (especially the politics and efforts of several non-for profit organizations) I can tell you all about A.C.O.R.N. and its ultimate goals. My girlfriend’s NPO is practically bed buddies with them. My friend works down the street from their headquarters.

And I am not talking about anything illegal. (Though they have been the subject of voter fraud issues here in St. Louis well before Obama was ever a national player) Everything they do is completely legal and very, VERY politically adventagous. I can’t fault them for it at all they have termindous "political game" but I can also attest that both the charity (sadly) and ACORN would love as much socialism is they can get. And Obama loves ACORN. So don’t even try to pretend like their influence on government policy is worth less than what most baseball players have made in the same time period. Please. ACORN and Obama are as allied as you can get.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by panerd

You are very naive if you don't think they haven't benefitted immensely under Obama. They dictate a lot of federal poverty policy that is worth way more than $53 million. (In exchange obviously for considerable help from them during the election.

Those are two pretty serious assertions. Let's see your evidence.


Anyway, I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea: at the end of the day I can live with them losing their money because I believe in accountability (a foreign concept in today's political landscape, I know). If someone screws up badly, they shouldn't be trusted anymore. It's amusing, of course, that given the list of organizations that have screwed up massively over the past few years it's ACORN that gets singled out, but that's politics for you, I guess.

What I find amusing is guys like Mark Kirk getting so self-righteous about it, when in perspective no one gives a fuck about $3 million a year under any other fricking circumstance and there's a nice bright example of considerably more government waste on the front page of USA Today this same day.

(By the way, who knew USA Today did investigative journalism?)

I mean seriously, $3 million/year? The government probably spends that much on hookers and blow.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

What? People who help out poor and lower-middle-class people want more government assistance and larger social programs? Really? I'm shocked!

Again, if Sweden or France is socialism, then give me some socialism.

seriously. wasn't the whole "socialism" boogyman over with when the Soviet Union collapsed?? I'm not sure what the deal is with invoking it as some sort of fear tactic these days.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Those are two pretty serious assertions. Let's see your evidence.


Anyway, I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea: at the end of the day I can live with them losing their money because I believe in accountability (a foreign concept in today's political landscape, I know). If someone screws up badly, they shouldn't be trusted anymore. It's amusing, of course, that given the list of organizations that have screwed up massively over the past few years it's ACORN that gets singled out, but that's politics for you, I guess.

What I find amusing is guys like Mark Kirk getting so self-righteous about it, when in perspective no one gives a fuck about $3 million a year under any other fricking circumstance and there's a nice bright example of considerably more government waste on the front page of USA Today this same day.

(By the way, who knew USA Today did investigative journalism?)

I mean seriously, $3 million/year? The government probably spends that much on hookers and blow.

the minerals office of the department of the interior under Bush II certainly used to

[panerd]

There are no assertions at all. I work at a public school, all of the board policy and central office policies are the result of massive politicking. I am sure where you work is exactly the same way. You really think a major city and its policies with it's lower class aren't 100% political?

About my girlfriend she is definitely an Obama supporter. And she really deep in her heart wants to help homeless people not go hungry and to stay on their feet. And she tells me all the time about the real politics behind food banks and homeless shelters, its really sad. (This is local stuff, nothing to do with ACORN) As far as ACORN goes she has also told me about help they have gotten from ACORN and help that they gave to ACORN. It is really hardcore politics. Deals where the mayor gets something, the local aldermen get something, and the NPO’s can operate soup kitchens etc. Nothing illegal either but a lot different than what most people think goes into helping the homeless. (Oh we will just go cook food for them… What we have to make backdoor handshake deals with politicians to help the homeless???)

So how does this effect national policy? Obama was once one of these guys. You don't think that he is of the same mindset of these guys and bounces ideas off these guys? They are in his ear waayy more than most. This is simply more than $52 million.

And that's my whole point. I am not Glenn Beck uncovering some massive conspiracy like you guys act like you are about every subject. I just happen to be more familiar with ACORN than most people.

[flere-imsaho]

You've painted a picture of ACORN that describes it similarly to any organization, be they non-profit or a corporation, that lobbies the government for money and influence.

You've then taken Obama's past experience as a community organizer and made the logical leap that ACORN now "dictates" (your word, not mine) U.S. poverty policy under the Obama Administration.

That's a hell of a logical leap, my friend.


I certainly hope you had a similar level of outrage upon hearing that the company formerly headed by Dick Cheney, which received billions in taxpayer's money, was responsible, through negligence and shoddy work, for, on a number of occasions, the electrocution of U.S. soldiers in Iraq. And they served my brother meatballs in Ramadi that were effectively inedible.

Though they later blew up the meatballs at their observation post for fun, so I suppose that was a net benefit.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

So how does this effect national policy? Obama was once one of these guys. You don't think that he is of the same mindset of these guys and bounces ideas off these guys? They are in his ear waayy more than most. This is simply more than $52 million.

that right there is your flaw. that's a big leap to make with zero evidence, just your feeling

[panerd]

Fuck, you guys aren’t worth it. If you want to live in la-la kumbaya world and think that the organizations that help the poor do it without any interference from the government and in turn get no benefit for themselves than we can’t have a serious discussion on this topic.

It is like a St. Louis fan trying to bring perspective to a Yankees-Red Sox arguement. I am familiar with each side’s talking points, actually agree and respect some from each side, but in the end of the day see right through both of their sets of bullshit. (because I don’t really CARE that much about either one) You guys seem to think you are either for poverty or against it and there is no grey area. Well that’s fucking naïve and you will never be able to rationally discuss organizations like ACORN, and the salvation army, and church organizations You just don’t get it.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I certainly hope you had a similar level of outrage upon hearing that the company formerly headed by Dick Cheney, which received billions in taxpayer's money, was responsible, through negligence and shoddy work, for, on a number of occasions, the electrocution of U.S. soldiers in Iraq. And they served my brother meatballs in Ramadi that were effectively inedible.

Though they later blew up the meatballs at their observation post for fun, so I suppose that was a net benefit.

You're right. Big oil, the defense industry, and banks (isn't this true for every administration) were huge beneficiares of Bush's presidency. Like like social justice organizations will be under any Democrat. You don't think ACORN is one of the the players in the social justice arena?

[DaddyTorgo]

nobody's saying they don't have interference or benefit from the government, but to insist that accorn plays some major role in setting FEDERAL policy because "obama was once one of those guys" and "he bounces ideas off them" and "they are in his ear wayyyy more than most" is a leap with no evidence to back it up. it's guilt-by-association when he's indirectly associated.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by panerd

There are no assertions at all.

Yes there are. Two, in fact:

1. ACORN dictates U.S. poverty policy.

2. ACORN provided considerable help to the Obama campaign during the election.

An assertion is generally defined as a positive statement or a declaration that is offered without immediate obvious support (logical, factual or otherwise).

So you've clearly made two assertions. I've asked you to prove them. If you can't, then they're merely allegations.

Generally-speaking I think you'll find more factual support for your second assertion, though it may be tough to prove that ACORN provided the Obama campaign with more material support than other organizations.

Also, your first assertion might be easier to prove if you used "influence" instead of "dictate", but you didn't. Maybe you can make a case that Ken Salazar (Interior), Tom Vilsack (Agriculture), Hilda Solis (Labor), Kathleen Sebelius (Health and Human Services), or Shaun Donovan (HUD) are in thrall to ACORN.

[RainMaker]

I have no problem dropping funding to ACORN. There should be a high standard for those who receive funding from the government and they don't meet it.

With that said, I agree in a way with what flere is saying. ACORN is real small potatoes and is getting way too much attention. I mean we gave $170 billion to AIG and they are now giving their new CEO a $10 million dollar bonus for essentially nothing. We had companies like Haliburton extort billions from the government in Iraq for shoddy work. There are much bigger fish in the lake than ACORN.

But the ACORN witchhunt is political. It allows one side to portray the other as some scandalous minorities looking to circumvent elections. It is funny that the ones in the media who are so upset about people not covering ACORN were the ones who let a President pass on lies to start a war that will cost trillions along with the thousands of American lives.

Totally fine with the cutting of funding, but how about we put this same effort into issues that matter a little more.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by panerd

Fuck, you guys aren’t worth it. If you want to live in la-la kumbaya world and think that the organizations that help the poor do it without any interference from the government and in turn get no benefit for themselves than we can’t have a serious discussion on this topic.

Who said that?

There's a big difference between contending that governments and non-profit organizations often operate in mutually beneficial (and sometimes slimy) relationships (with which I'd say we all would agree) and saying that ACORN dictates U.S. poverty policy.

Look, you used the wrong word and you presented your opinion, based on personal experience, as fact. We all do it. I'm sure I've done it, probably recently. It doesn't validate your argument. The points you make about ACORN being a shady organization, especially in St. Louis are relevant, but they simply don't translate into support for an argument that Obama owes his election to them or that they dictate U.S. poverty policy. Admit that you over-reached with your argument, and we'll move on.

Well, to be honest, I'm going to bed, so the thread will move on anyway, so do what you like. For what it's worth, I know where you're coming from, being passionate on an issue, I just take issue with your overreach. Nothing personal.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Yes there are. Two, in fact:

1. ACORN dictates U.S. poverty policy.

2. ACORN provided considerable help to the Obama campaign during the election.

An assertion is generally defined as a positive statement or a declaration that is offered without immediate obvious support (logical, factual or otherwise).

So you've clearly made two assertions. I've asked you to prove them. If you can't, then they're merely allegations.

Generally-speaking I think you'll find more factual support for your second assertion, though it may be tough to prove that ACORN provided the Obama campaign with more material support than other organizations.

Also, your first assertion might be easier to prove if you used "influence" instead of "dictate", but you didn't. Maybe you can make a case that Ken Salazar (Interior), Tom Vilsack (Agriculture), Hilda Solis (Labor), Kathleen Sebelius (Health and Human Services), or Shaun Donovan (HUD) are in thrall to ACORN.

Listen your original post's conclusion was along the lines of "A Republican sent me a postcard saying the government spent $50 million on ACORN. Therefore that is about their level of influence. Why are we are up in arms about an amount the government probably spends on ashtrays." Correct me if I'm wrong.

My response is ACORN's influence if properly measured would be in the billions. And NO I have no evidence to support this but I also have no evidence support that alcohol companies benefit immensely from the war on drugs or that casinos benefit form online gambling being illegal but I don't think anyone would ever try and argue those aren’t true. You guys are just defending ACORN because that what you think Obama supporters are supposed to do. (and are incapable of thought that agrees with the other side. Just like JinMidGa and MBBF are the other way) There is no doubt that social justice is a key part of any Democrat, espeically a former community organizer. No doubt at all.

[Flasch186]

X Acorn and X to the other Fleecers.

Im unhappy about the AIG bonuses BUT I do recognize that theyre the bad bank and are serving a very important purpose to the financial system right now. Most dont know that.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

LOL. So I get an email from my local Rep, Mark Kirk (R-IL), who, by the way, is running for Obama's former Senate seat next year, and of course it's about ACORN.

What catches my eye, however, is the statement that since 1994 the government has given the outrageous sum of $53 million to ACORN. Which is just bad timing, because on the way home I heard this NPR story about how the government gives $1.2 BILLION each year in aggregate to very small airports around the country that service pretty much no one: Feds keep little-used airports in business - USATODAY.com

So yeah, clearly the folks at ACORN have made some bad decisions, and by now, if you accept at face value everything we've been told about ACORN (which is a stretch, but let's go with it for the sake of argument), it's clear the organization needs a pretty serious change in direction/oversight. But of course that ignores a lot of the good work the organization does. For $53 million over the course of 15 years. I mean, Bill Clinton and John Edwards spent more than that on haircuts. WTF?

I mean, a Wall Street company squanders that kind of money and it would be a rounding error. No one would care. We'd never even hear about it.

We gave billions to KBR and they constructed showers in Iraq that electrocuted American soldiers. AIG probably lost that much government money an hour while under duress. Fifty-three million is probably the amount of money the execs at Goldman Sachs siphoned off from the TARP funds for their own bonuses.

I mean sure, ACORN has some Grade A dipshits working for it and clearly and executive/oversight/management structure that's completely out to lunch. So the answer is to jettison the infant with the bathwater? Completely dump any of the good they do for a savings of roughly $3 million/year? What a fucking joke.

No... save the infant. ACORN could help put her to work on the streets in a few years.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by panerd

You don't think ACORN is one of the the players in the social justice arena?

Did I say that? Where did I say that?

[DaddyTorgo]

LOL - ACORN's influence if properly measured would be in the billions?? really??

look - i have no problem saying they're slimy and until they clean house they don't deserve government $$, but that's just insane.

as flere said, just admit you overreached with your argument and it's fine.

nobody in this thread has really "defended" ACORN, we're all just saying you've overstated your argument

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by panerd

Listen your original post's conclusion was along the lines of "A Republican sent me a postcard saying the government spent $50 million on ACORN. Therefore that is about their level of influence. Why are we are up in arms about an amount the government probably spends on ashtrays." Correct me if I'm wrong.

My original post ( #5510 ) says nothing about influence. Doesn't even use the word. My focus was clearly and plainly about the dollars and the ridiculousness of the outrage from Mark Kirk, especially when compared to other bullshit government expenditures, specifically one on the front page of USA Today, today.

Put simply, you misread my post.

My response is ACORN's influence if properly measured would be in the billions. And NO I have no evidence to support this

While this is a ridiculous statement, it wouldn't necessarily be hard to make a case for it as an argument. Simply start looking at new federal expenditures made by the Obama Administration aimed at poverty programs that show some mark of ACORN influence (such as it being a program ACORN ran until recently, or a program ACORN lobbied for, etc...) and start adding them up.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

No... save the infant. ACORN could help put her to work on the streets in a few years.

Always the voice of reason.

[JPhillips]

And NO I have no evidence to support this but I also have no evidence support that alcohol companies benefit immensely from the war on drugs or that casinos benefit form online gambling being illegal but I don't think anyone would ever try and argue those aren’t true.

I wouldn't go as far to argue they aren't true, but I'd like to see some evidence they are true. It at least seems possible to me that an easier access to gambling would increase traffic in casinos and that casinos would benefit from the online presence. I've also never seen any studies that say alcohol use declines when other drugs are used.

In short, yes, I would like to see some evidence before I believe any assertions.

[flere-imsaho]

OK seriously, I'm going to bed now.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Always the voice of reason.

Heh. I still owe Rainmaker a thoughtful post about something he posted yesterday... it's just easier to come up with the one liners.

[Grammaticus]

Getting Acorn out of the Census business is the real upside here.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

My original post ( #5510 ) says nothing about influence. Doesn't even use the word. My focus was clearly and plainly about the dollars and the ridiculousness of the outrage from Mark Kirk, especially when compared to other bullshit government expenditures, specifically one on the front page of USA Today, today.

Put simply, you misread my post.



While this is a ridiculous statement, it wouldn't necessarily be hard to make a case for it as an argument. Simply start looking at new federal expenditures made by the Obama Administration aimed at poverty programs that show some mark of ACORN influence (such as it being a program ACORN ran until recently, or a program ACORN lobbied for, etc...) and start adding them up.

Cool on the misreading. I will drop it.


As far as adding them up, I really don't care to prove their influence in closer to $1 billion than $52 million. I am pretty sure anyone not directly involved would agree with me. I guess we will wait and see but not many non-partisans visit this thread. (We have people like MBBF or Flasch who really reach and claim they are, but we really don't have many people without a talking point opinion on this)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by panerd

We have people like MBBF who really reach and claim they are, but we really don't have many people without a talking point opinion on this

Hmmmmm, to think I was going to go to bat for you.

Let's just call a spade a spade. ACORN helped out the Obama campaign, both directly and mostly indirectly. Obama kept them in his good graces as a result. Republicans didn't like it and a couple of them decided to do a recorded sting to nail ACORN and minimize their legitimacy. Funding was removed.

ACORN played politics and got burned by another group of individuals playing politics. What's so surprising about this?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Let's just call a spade a spade.

You racist bastid.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Because the previous administration was so terrible, everything is permissible now.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Let's just call a spade a spade. ACORN helped out the Obama campaign, both directly and mostly indirectly. Obama kept them in his good graces as a result. Republicans didn't like it and a couple of them decided to do a recorded sting to nail ACORN and minimize their legitimacy. Funding was removed.

ACORN played politics and got burned by another group of individuals playing politics. What's so surprising about this?

This is possibly one of your best posts ever.