Chicago: a blocked-up gutter full of congealed liberalism, depravity and cheese*. Frankly, I can see why Varrus wants it gone.
*from those Chicago town˜ pizzas
˜†Actually a city.
†I'll stop doing this now.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Accorn Supports Child Prostitution
Accorn Supports Child ProstitutionFollow
That's not fair. It gets really cold around here in the winter and makes the liberalism thicken up 
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
CBD wrote:
Second: My line came before your backpedaling to "Well I'm not saying they directly told her to do it..." bullsh*t. Learn to read. Here's everything up till that point.
If you're going to lie about what you're saying and implying, don't do it where we can go back and still look at it.
gbaji wrote:
She's not a one-off. She's what the organization trains their workers to be.
gbaji wrote:
Do you honestly believe this woman decided to do this on her own? Or do you think she was just following procedures as she was taught? Again. How on earth does someone think that this is what she's supposed to be doing?
gbaji wrote:
They believed that they were doing what they were supposed to be doing.
So how did they come to think that? Do you really think they're the only ones? You're incredibly naive if you do...
So how did they come to think that? Do you really think they're the only ones? You're incredibly naive if you do...
gbaji wrote:
How many videos of this happening at different locations will it take before you acknowledge that maybe there's something wrong with the organization itself?
gbaji wrote:
One you could dismiss as some whacko person doing something completely out there. Two people? At two different locations? In two different cities? The only thing they have in common is that they work for the same organization.
gbaji wrote:
Oh give me a break Smash. Are you telling me that this rank and file member just decided to help someone start a child prostitution ring all on her own? And that this was the first and only time? I'm sorry, I find it hard to believe that someone does this their first time out. Her behavior indicated that this sort of thing is common. It's what Acorn does. Not just what she does.
If you're going to lie about what you're saying and implying, don't do it where we can go back and still look at it.
Not a single one of those quotes contradicts the post I made just above this one.
Quote:
Don't bother with the reply demanding that these were all taken out of context or that you didn't mean what they said, it's not going to get you anywhere.
I don't have to. They don't support your claim about what I was saying. See how that works?
You know what's so darn funny about this? If the behavior in question was pollution and we were talking about some large company, you'd instinctively understand that a company is responsible for making sure that its policies prevent pollution. Such that even though the offenders are guys tossing barrels of chemical waste into a landfill on their own, you'd hold the company responsible for not ensuring that they weren't doing this.
But it's like a mental block when it's an organization like Acorn. You just can't grasp that if workers are breaking the law to do their jobs, that there's something amiss with the rules and training of their employer. Remember. They weren't doing something for themselves. They were doing their jobs. Their jobs are to sign people up for various assistance programs. How they do that is a reflection of their training and job oversight.
It's pretty clear that these were lacking...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Not a single one of those quotes contradicts the post I made just above this one.
The point I said I wasn't even going to bother reading because it probably just consisted of you defending your backpedaling?
I guess its a real shame that the quotes don't pertain to what I wasn't talking about.
gbaji wrote:
They don't support your claim about what I was saying.
Whatever makes you happy.
gbaji wrote:
If the behavior in question was pollution and we were talking about some large company, you'd instinctively understand that a company is responsible for making sure that its policies prevent pollution.
ACORN Law 37b:
Thou shall not advise pimps, and thou shall not advise prostitutes.
gbaji wrote:
Such that even though the offenders are guys tossing barrels of chemical waste into a landfill on their own, you'd hold the company responsible for not ensuring that they weren't doing this.
No I wouldn't. I'd hold the men responsible for the action of doing it. I would hold the company responsible overall if they were ordering the men to do it. Your disconnect falls between the second and third sentence there. I'm not going to hold my breath that you understand some day, because even if you do you'll pretend you don't.
gbaji wrote:
They weren't doing something for themselves. They were doing their jobs.
You're being deliberately obtuse.
If I were 13 and stopped at a Noco, it would be the cashier's job to sell me what I choose to buy from their store. If said cashier sells me a pack of cigarettes, he was still doing his job. That doesn't mean Noco or any other employee is to blame for me being able to buy that pack of cigarettes.
gbaji wrote:
It's pretty clear that these were lacking...
God forbid HR can't see the future and tell that those people they just hired are total @#%^-ups.
Edited, Sep 14th 2009 4:46pm by CBD
Edited, Sep 14th 2009 4:47pm by CBD
publiusvarus wrote:
Bard,
Exactly. Just like Obama knew what kind of person Rev Wright was. Just like Obama knew who Ayers was. When are you people going to start holding your politicians accountable for who they associate with?
It is very likely without Acorns support Obama would have lost the election. Not saying definite, because we'll never know.
Funny how you people had a problem with Cheney's connection to Halliburton but don't seem to mind so much Obama's connection with just, if not more, corrupt organization.
Quote:
President Obama himself knew what was going on and therefore should have disengaged himself from Acorn.
Exactly. Just like Obama knew what kind of person Rev Wright was. Just like Obama knew who Ayers was. When are you people going to start holding your politicians accountable for who they associate with?
It is very likely without Acorns support Obama would have lost the election. Not saying definite, because we'll never know.
Funny how you people had a problem with Cheney's connection to Halliburton but don't seem to mind so much Obama's connection with just, if not more, corrupt organization.
I must of missed Obama's admission to having clairvoyance or some other prophetic ability.
publiusvarus wrote:
It is very likely without Acorns support Obama would have lost the election. Not saying definite, because we'll never know.
It's very likely we'll be wiped out by a giant asteroid some day. I'm not saying definite, because we'll never know, but heck, it could happen tomorrow! So let's all start to panic now.
publiusvarus wrote:
At least Blackwater has kept up the pretense of doing something that protects american citizens.
That's all it takes to get your approval in the face of stolen money and criminal behavior? A pretense?
Huh.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
CBD wrote:
If I were 13 and stopped at a Noco, it would be the cashier's job to sell me what I choose to buy from their store. If said cashier sells me a pack of cigarettes, he was still doing his job. That doesn't mean Noco or any other employee is to blame for me being able to buy that pack of cigarettes.
And yet, if Noco employees are caught doing this once, the company gets put on probation. Twice, and they lose their license to sell cigarettes. At least that's how the laws were set up where/when I worked a counter where cigarettes were sold.
Do you understand that current law holds employers responsible for the actions of their employees?
Why not 8in this case?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
the company gets put on probation
The location and individual store get put on probation. If it happens twice across the United States, the government isn't going to forbid Noco from selling cigarettes nationwide because of some idiot kid working the register drunk off his *** on the overnight shift in Tulsa.
Edited, Sep 14th 2009 5:10pm by CBD
publiusvarus wrote:
Who says it was stolen? And have you considered why we might not be able to come right out and say specifically what happened to that money? Do we really want the rest of the world to know exactly where our tax dollars are being spent?
Lookit Varus, spinning himself around to give billions upon billions of missing tax-payer dollars the benefit of the doubt rather than admit that anything might possibly be wrong with his beloved Halliburton and Blackwater companies
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophed,
Gotta be better than sticking up for pimps and prostitutes.
Quote:
Lookit Varus, spinning himself around to give billions upon billions of missing tax-payer dollars the benefit of the doubt rather than admit that anything might possibly be wrong with his beloved Halliburton and Blackwater companies
Gotta be better than sticking up for pimps and prostitutes.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Samy,
You realize that there's no actual evidence that they did anything wrong, beyond one of the guards coping a deal to save his own as* right?
omg NY Times does a hit piece involving military men and liberals believe it.
And guess what...these insurgents (terrorists) don't wear uniforms and like to hide behind women and children. I know you hate the military but this is getting ridiculous.
You realize that there's no actual evidence that they did anything wrong, beyond one of the guards coping a deal to save his own as* right?
omg NY Times does a hit piece involving military men and liberals believe it.
Quote:
After the episode, Blackwater officials said that the guards had been responding to fire from insurgents, but prosecutors charge that they fired on unarmed civilians, including many who were shot in their cars while they were trying to flee.
And guess what...these insurgents (terrorists) don't wear uniforms and like to hide behind women and children. I know you hate the military but this is getting ridiculous.
publiusvarus wrote:
Gotta be better than sticking up for pimps and prostitutes.
I said I'm fine with Acorn being investigated. So why aren't you demanding investigations into Halliburton and Blackwater? Why aren't you outraged at this misuse of tax-payer dollars, an amount that dwarfs every penny Acorn has ever taken in (much less used talking to pimps)?
Oh, that's right. Because you're not actually upset at all and you don't give a fuck what happens to billions of tax-payer dollars if it's not a Rush talking point.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Perhaps you missed this part:
That's last year, in case you have your socks on. Your boy George's watch, don't you know.
It's not a hit piece if it's true.
Quote:
The guards were indicted by a federal grand jury last December after a criminal investigation by the F.B.I. in Iraq and were arraigned in federal court in Washington in January.
That's last year, in case you have your socks on. Your boy George's watch, don't you know.
It's not a hit piece if it's true.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
publiusvarus wrote:
So you would rather have missing funds go towards pimps and hookers than towards private security forces who help ensure the safety of US citizens.
You don't realize this is exactly what you--not Jophiel--has stated?
It might be funnier to leave it so concise, but I know you need an explanation. There are billions of dollars missing. We don't know how they were spent. They could have easily been spent on pimps and hookers. You think this is ok. You're ok with not knowing if the billions were spent on ensuring the safety of U.S. citizens. You are the one who is ok with the money being spent on hookers instead of national security.
Edited, Sep 14th 2009 5:19pm by Allegory
publiusvarus wrote:
So you would rather have missing funds go towards pimps and hookers than towards private security forces who help ensure the safety of US citizens. Sounds about right.
Lookit you pretending not to see where I said I'm cool with investigating Acorn so you can cling to your precious Blackwater! Run scared, little Varus! Run scared!
Typical GOP pussy
Aaahh... you're always good for a laugh.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
CBD wrote:
gbaji wrote:
the company gets put on probation
The location and individual store get put on probation. If it happens twice across the United States, the government isn't going to forbid Noco from selling cigarettes nationwide because of some idiot kid working the register drunk off his *** on the overnight shift in Tulsa.
Sure. But if we're comparing the impact of the action, isn't it fair to say that helping people steal taxpayer dollars to run a child prostitution ring, while also helping them conceal the income from said endeavor from the IRS is pretty much in a whole different category in terms of offense?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
But if we're comparing the impact of the action, isn't it fair to say that helping people steal taxpayer dollars to run a child prostitution ring, while also helping them conceal the income from said endeavor from the IRS is pretty much in a whole different category in terms of offense?
Of course not. Why would you confused category for degree? The category is identical but the offense, the token, the instance, is quite different. If you want to reduce the appropriate ways of administering justice in individual examples of corruption among conglomerations to some simple utility calculus, then sure, we should probably close down acorn (as well as every business in existence, but whatever, I can dig it.) If we are not doing that though, and instead talking about ways that justice should be administered depending on the category of action, then pimping equals cancer-sticks.
Quote:
Gotta be better than sticking up for pimps and prostitutes.
Pimps and hos are representing legitimate professions which are near-categorically corrupt, and in most practical terms harmful to everyone involved. Security companies are businesses which are necessarily corrupt by their very functions, and are also harmful to everyone involved in most practical terms.
gbaji wrote:
Sure. But if we're comparing the impact of the action, isn't it fair to say that helping people steal taxpayer dollars to run a child prostitution ring, while also helping them conceal the income from said endeavor from the IRS is pretty much in a whole different category in terms of offense?
We are not discussing severity of the offense. Please stop blatantly sidestepping the issue in an effort to avoid saying "You are right, it is illogical to say that this is the fault of ACORN leadership."
Thank you.
Recent Visitors: 222
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (222)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Accorn Supports Child Prostitution
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC