PDA

View Full Version : Elections ACORN investigation


HonestChieffan
03-23-2009, 07:05 AM
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31172

ACORN Whistleblowers Produce Shocking Testimony on Capitol Hill
by Connie Hair

03/23/2009


Late last week, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary, called for a hearing to investigate ACORN. You read that right. At a Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties subcommittee hearing entitled “Lessons Learned from the 2008 Election” last Thursday, witness testimony not only drew Conyers to the subcommittee hearing but events led to Conyers strongly urging that subcommittee chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) conduct a full hearing on ACORN, calling allegations made at the hearing “serious.”

The shocking testimony that began the chain of events came from Pennsylvania attorney Heather Heidelbaugh, who in October of last year represented “a candidate, voters and the Republican State Committee of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania” seeking a preliminary injunction against ACORN and the Secretary of the Commonwealth. The complaint alleged violations of the election code, fraud and misrepresentation, and violations of equal protection and due process.

Heidelbaugh brought with her to the hearing ACORN whistleblowers, including Anita MonCrief, a former Washington, D.C., ACORN employee who came forward to testify last October in the Pennsylvania case. MonCrief, a Democrat who voted for and still supports President Obama, made allegations including the exposure of Obama maxed-out donor lists illegally shared with ACORN, allegations of illegal intermingling of non-profit employees between ACORN and Project Vote, and the use of intimidation tactics and training methods to skirt regulations, among many other assertions.


Testimony also revealed ACORN’s unofficial “Muscle for the Money” program directed at fundraising from corporations. Allegations were made of payments from Service Employees International Union (SEIU) to ACORN's D.C office to harass The Carlyle Group and specifically David Rubenstein, a founder of the company. Even though ACORN D.C. had no interest in The Carlyle Group, they were allegedly paid by SEIU to go break up a banquet and protest at Rubenstein’s house.

It was called “Muscle for the Money” because they would go “intimidate people and protest.” Targets of the protests included Sherwin-Williams, H&R Block, Jackson Hewitt, and Money Mart among others, testimony revealed. The apparent purpose was to get money from the targeted entities for ACORN.

Perhaps the most controversial accusation revealed by whistleblower testimony was the scheme by which ACORN and Project Vote are paid by foundations per voter registered and the submission of copies of actual voter registration cards to the foundations, which is a violation of federal law.

I spoke with whistleblower Anita MonCrief at the hearing. “ACORN itself is sometimes paid by foundations per registration and, in some case,s they would send copies of the voter registration cards straight to the funder,” MonCrief said. “Workers are improperly trained. … They are trained to never ask, ‘Are you registered to vote?’ because if the person says ‘Yes,’ they have to move on. They ask, ‘Did you vote in the last election,’ and if the person says ‘No,’ they register them again. This is how they duplicate registrations and flood the offices.”

When these allegations began to surface in hearing testimony, Conyers suddenly appeared at the subcommittee hearing and asked to be recognized, saying that he was “… unaware that this was a hearing on ACORN.” Conyers probed those assembled, asking if any representatives of ACORN were present to defend the organization. Conyers called the accusations made against ACORN a “pretty serious matter.” When no one from ACORN came forth, he asked subcommittee chairman Nadler to hold a hearing on ACORN so the organization could defend itself, to which a shocked Nadler replied, “I’ll take it under advisement.”

Conyers pressed the matter, saying, “I think that it would be something that would be worth our time. We've never had one person representing ACORN before the committee. ... I think in all fairness we ought to really examine it.” An exasperated Nadler said he would hold a hearing when he had “credible allegations of misconduct.”

Nadler abruptly dismissed the panel shortly thereafter.

“I would encourage chairman Conyers in his call for a hearing and investigation into ACORN,” Heidelbaugh told HUMAN EVENTS in the hallway outside of the hearing. “The Judiciary Committee has oversight of the voting system in America, and ACORN is interfering in it in a large, large way. The federal government in some cases is providing the funding for that interference.”

I also spoke with Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), a member of the House Judiciary Committee as well as the Constitution subcommittee, who questioned Heidelbaugh during the hearing.

“We’re about to appropriate even more money, and we’ve already appropriated some money that may very well be directed to ACORN,” Gohmert said. “If we know that an organization is guilty of fraud, and we provide them the money and the wherewithal to continue the fraud, then we are accessories to fraud. The only difference between us and a criminal is that we have the ability to pass laws that say even though we’re criminals we’re doing our criminal work legally. It doesn’t make it moral, it doesn’t make it ethical, it just makes it legal to say we can be accessories to fraud by providing the money.”

petegz28
03-23-2009, 07:21 AM
ACORN is bad news.

patteeu
03-23-2009, 08:28 AM
I anticipate a whitewash.

RINGLEADER
03-23-2009, 09:58 AM
Congress is blind. No matter what the evidence, if it runs counter to their political needs, they ignore it. Same thing happened with Freddie and Fannie hearings everyone has seen. It's embarrassing.

If you need evidence of misconduct Mr. Nadler just Google ACORN and see what kinds of articles the MSM has written. That would be a good place for you to start.

Ultra Peanut
03-23-2009, 10:15 AM
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

ROYC75
03-24-2009, 07:07 AM
ACORN, a liberal president, congress, the house, Yeah, right.

Same old same old ......... Nothing will be done.

jAZ
03-24-2009, 07:54 AM
I anticipate a whitewash.

You don't have to anticipate the whitewash, that article is a whitewash.

I spoke with whistleblower Anita MonCrief at the hearing. “ACORN itself is sometimes paid by foundations per registration and, in some case,s they would send copies of the voter registration cards straight to the funder,” MonCrief said. “Workers are improperly trained. … They are trained to never ask, ‘Are you registered to vote?’ because if the person says ‘Yes,’ they have to move on. They ask, ‘Did you vote in the last election,’ and if the person says ‘No,’ they register them again. This is how they duplicate registrations and flood the offices.”

If you've ever actually worked doing voter registration, this is standard protocol and not remotely objectionable. And it has nothing to do with being paid by the card or not.

People don't know if they are registered to vote. They only know if they think they should be registered to vote. With the voter roll purges, people moving, etc. it's not a given that a person who says they are registered are actually registered. So you ask if they voted in the last election. If they say yes, you have confidence that they verified recently that they were registered. If they say no, you can offer to register them again, just to be sure.

You do some extra work, but you get it right this way.

jAZ
03-24-2009, 07:58 AM
Heidelbaugh brought with her to the hearing ACORN whistleblowers, including Anita MonCrief, a former Washington, D.C., ACORN employee who came forward to testify last October in the Pennsylvania case. MonCrief, a Democrat who voted for and still supports President Obama, made allegations including the exposure of Obama maxed-out donor lists illegally shared with ACORN, allegations of illegal intermingling of non-profit employees between ACORN and Project Vote, and the use of intimidation tactics and training methods to skirt regulations, among many other assertions.

These allegations could be true, and on a case by case basis, I'm certain that things like this happen, if in those cases, there should be a process to deal with such actions. However, case by case isn't the same as systemic illegal activity designed to be conducted by leadership. That is a far more serious thing. We don't know which is alleged from this article.

Garcia Bronco
03-24-2009, 08:00 AM
\

People don't know if they are registered to vote.

Bullshit. You know if you are registered to vote. If you don't then you probably shouldn't be voting at all.

jAZ
03-24-2009, 08:11 AM
Bullshit. You know if you are registered to vote.

Many people believe they are registered and they are. Some people believed they are registered, but because they haven't voted in x number of years, they could be mistaken.

If you don't then you probably shouldn't be voting at all.
Yeah, run with that. Talk about elitism.

Garcia Bronco
03-24-2009, 08:16 AM
Yeah, run with that. Talk about elitism.

There is nothing elistist about knowing what the hell you are doing.

I've got no problem admitting that various people in our country have no business voting. This group would include those not knowing if they are registered to vote. Personally I would have it so that if you do NOT pay income tax you are not allowed to vote, but this is a completely different topic.

KC native
03-24-2009, 08:31 AM
There is nothing elistist about knowing what the hell you are doing.

I've got no problem admitting that various people in our country have no business voting. This group would include those not knowing if they are registered to vote. Personally I would have it so that if you do NOT pay income tax you are not allowed to vote, but this is a completely different topic.

:shake: Yea, poll taxes have such a good history in our country

Garcia Bronco
03-24-2009, 08:32 AM
:shake: Yea, poll taxes have such a good history in our country

It's not a poll tax. It's simply stating that if you don't pay income tax you have no business voting on representation that will shape how those taxes are collected and where they are spent.

jAZ
03-24-2009, 08:37 AM
Your ideas stand on their own lack of merit Garcia Bronco. No need to take them seriously.

KC native
03-24-2009, 08:37 AM
It's not a poll tax. It's simply stating that if you don't pay income tax you have no business voting on representation that will shape how those taxes are collected and where they are spent.

:shake:So, in effect it's a poll tax because if you don't pay income tax you can't vote.

Garcia Bronco
03-24-2009, 08:48 AM
:shake:So, in effect it's a poll tax because if you don't pay income tax you can't vote.

I guess you could technically call it that. You could technically call a voter registration card a poll tax. But that's what I would do. Of course those with Civil Service Jobs and Soldiers would be able to vote regardless, but I think if your aren't paying income taxes then you have no say in representation.

Garcia Bronco
03-24-2009, 08:55 AM
Your ideas stand on their own lack of merit Garcia Bronco. No need to take them seriously.

Merit in your analogy acts as a support. It is the support. Ergo, if they lack merit then they don't stand. Unfortunately for you, they do have merit.

KC native
03-24-2009, 08:55 AM
I guess you could technically call it that. You could technically call a voter registration card a poll tax. But that's what I would do. Of course those with Civil Service Jobs and Soldiers would be able to vote regardless, but I think if your aren't paying income taxes then you have no say in representation.

No, you can't call a voter registration a poll tax. It doesn't cost anyone any money and is available to everyone. It's not even close to being a poll tax. Keep spinning though buddy.

Garcia Bronco
03-24-2009, 08:59 AM
No, you can't call a voter registration a poll tax. It doesn't cost anyone any money and is available to everyone. It's not even close to being a poll tax. Keep spinning though buddy.

Bullshit. They do cost money. The cost just varies from state to state. In Colorado for example they are your drivers lic, which costs money. In Virginia for example, it a seperate card shipped to you after you apply for your Driver Lic. Plus the money and time spent to aquire and maintain that status. So yes technically it is a poll tax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_taxes

United States
A poll tax (in the sense of capitation) plays a significant role in the history of taxation in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States) and the adoption of income tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax) as a significant source of government funding. However, the second meaning of poll tax, namely a tax to be paid as a prerequisite to voting, is more widely known in the US today. It was widely used in the South after the turn of the 20th century in combination with other measures to bar blacks and poor whites from voter registration and voting. Recent debate has arisen about whether requiring citizens to purchase a state identification card (to prevent voter fraud) acts as a poll tax and bars poor voters from voting.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-The_New_York_Times_0-0>[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_taxes#cite_note-The_New_York_Times-0)</SUP> To help prevent this from happening the states of Georgia and Indiana are offering free identification cards for those who can demonstrate the need. However, the cost of traveling to a government office can be prohibitive for the homeless and the poorest of society. In addition, there may be costs in acquiring the documents needed for an identification card.

KC native
03-24-2009, 09:05 AM
Bullshit. They do cost money. The cost just varies from state to state. In Colorado for example they are your drivers lic, which costs money. In Virginia for example, it a seperate card shipped to you after you apply for your Driver Lic. Plus the money and time spent to aquire and maintain that status. So yes technically it is a poll tax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_taxes

United States
A poll tax (in the sense of capitation) plays a significant role in the history of taxation in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States) and the adoption of income tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax) as a significant source of government funding. However, the second meaning of poll tax, namely a tax to be paid as a prerequisite to voting, is more widely known in the US today. It was widely used in the South after the turn of the 20th century in combination with other measures to bar blacks and poor whites from voter registration and voting. Recent debate has arisen about whether requiring citizens to purchase a state identification card (to prevent voter fraud) acts as a poll tax and bars poor voters from voting.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-The_New_York_Times_0-0>[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_taxes#cite_note-The_New_York_Times-0)</SUP> To help prevent this from happening the states of Georgia and Indiana are offering free identification cards for those who can demonstrate the need. However, the cost of traveling to a government office can be prohibitive for the homeless and the poorest of society. In addition, there may be costs in acquiring the documents needed for an identification card.

Now, you're trying to confuse the issue. A voter registration card in and of itself isn't a poll tax. A state, like those in the South and Colorado, that charges for an id card to vote is a poll tax. If the card is free it isn't a poll tax. Nice try though. Keep spinning away.

Garcia Bronco
03-24-2009, 09:13 AM
Now, you're trying to confuse the issue. A voter registration card in and of itself isn't a poll tax. A state, like those in the South and Colorado, that charges for an id card to vote is a poll tax. If the card is free it isn't a poll tax. Nice try though. Keep spinning away.

There is nothing confusing about it. I said technically. They are offering it free, provided the need is demostrated, because it has been argued that it is a poll tax when one has to aquire one through financial means. Read the words on your screen.

KC native
03-24-2009, 09:19 AM
There is nothing confusing about it. I said technically. They are offering it free, provided the need is demostrated, because it has been argued that it is a poll tax when one has to aquire one through financial means. Read the words on your screen.

Is that not what I just said here?

Now, you're trying to confuse the issue. A voter registration card in and of itself isn't a poll tax. A state, like those in the South and Colorado, that charges for an id card to vote is a poll tax. If the card is free it isn't a poll tax. Nice try though. Keep spinning away.


You are wrong. Just admit it and move on.

Velvet_Jones
03-24-2009, 09:22 AM
Your ideas stand on their own lack of merit Garcia Bronco. No need to take them seriously.

That is exactly the way I think your ideas should be taken. You are such a pompous ass.

jAZ
03-24-2009, 09:23 AM
The guy is advocating income contingent voting rights. Why take the discussion seriously?

Garcia Bronco
03-24-2009, 09:24 AM
You are wrong.

You just said you said the samething.

So back to what I was saying. I would in fact bar people from voting if they do not pay income tax. You can call it a poll tax and everything else you want, but it's logical.

Garcia Bronco
03-24-2009, 09:25 AM
The guy is advocating income contingent voting rights. Why take the discussion seriously?

Income tax. Not income. Not your AGI or GI, but that you pay income tax at all.

jAZ
03-24-2009, 09:26 AM
That is exactly the way I think your ideas should be taken.

If that were true, you'd show up around me a lot less often and when you did it would be to briefly point out that my ideas are flawed. That's not how you act though. You like to see yourself as relevant, I'm just your pathway to the promised land. I enjoy the attention though, thanks.

KC native
03-24-2009, 09:27 AM
You just said you said the samething.

So back to what I was saying. I would in fact bar people from voting if they do not pay income tax. You can call it a poll tax and everything else you want, but it's logical.

No, it's not logical. So, you're willing to keep seniors who aren't paying income tax from voting?

Garcia Bronco
03-24-2009, 09:28 AM
my ideas are flawed.

Everybody knows most of your ideas are flawed. There is no need to constantly point them out.

Garcia Bronco
03-24-2009, 09:32 AM
No, it's not logical. So, you're willing to keep seniors who aren't paying income tax from voting?

Maybe, If they aren't paying income tax, why should they have a say in the way it's spent? Now you could argue money paid over their lifetime, and I would accept that as a sound argument.

jAZ
03-24-2009, 09:34 AM
Income tax. Not income. Not your AGI or GI, but that you pay income tax at all.

In every serious tax system ever put forward the lowest income brackets pay no tax. Even in the flat or fair tax schemes. The low income employed and the disable, unemployed, don't pay taxes.

They either have no income or no taxable income.

It's income contingent, even if the phrase feels yucky to you.

KC native
03-24-2009, 09:34 AM
Maybe, If they aren't paying income tax, why should they have a say in the way it's spent? Now you could argue money paid over their lifetime, and I would accept that as a sound argument.

What about stay at home mom's? Do they not get a say?

Garcia Bronco
03-24-2009, 09:36 AM
What about stay at home mom's? Do they not get a say?

Do they pay income tax?

Garcia Bronco
03-24-2009, 09:37 AM
In every serious tax system ever put forward the lowest income brackets pay no tax. Even in the flat or fair tax schemes. The low income employed and the disable, unemployed, don't pay taxes.

They either have no income or no taxable income.

It's income contingent, even if the phrase feels yucky to you.

That's why everybody should pay taxes if one person has to pay taxes. It's fair.

KC native
03-24-2009, 09:42 AM
Do they pay income tax?

If you haven't noticed I'm just pointing out the absurdity of your "proposal"

Garcia Bronco
03-24-2009, 09:43 AM
If you haven't noticed I'm just pointing out the absurdity of your "proposal"

Answer the question. Do they pay income tax?

KC native
03-24-2009, 09:45 AM
Answer the question. Do they pay income tax?

:spock:Really? You want to keep going down this ridiculous train of thought?

Garcia Bronco
03-24-2009, 09:46 AM
:spock:Really? You want to keep going down this ridiculous train of thought?

Do they pay income tax in your example?

jAZ
03-24-2009, 09:48 AM
That's why everybody should pay taxes if one person has to pay taxes. It's fair.

Like I said, your plan is income contingent voting rights.

That stands on it's own as a disasterously bad idea.

Garcia Bronco
03-24-2009, 09:49 AM
That stands on it's own as a disasterously bad idea.

I disagree as long as we have a federal income tax.

Velvet_Jones
03-24-2009, 09:55 AM
If that were true, you'd show up around me a lot less often and when you did it would be to briefly point out that my ideas are flawed. That's not how you act though. You like to see yourself as relevant, I'm just your pathway to the promised land. I enjoy the attention though, thanks.

I just do this because I think you are stupid and a liar. You are the epitome of why your boy got elected: stupid, white, guilt ridden and lazy. You are being used as a useful idiot and are too stupid to know it. Your chickens are about to come home to roost. I can’t wait to see you squirming, trying to justify what your savior is currently doing and what he will do in the future. It’s already starting to show. Keep putting on that happy face – because you are going to need it.

I wouldn’t be doing this if you hadn’t been such a complete lying jackass the last 7 years.

Good luck living in this utopia that you promoted. I hope the taxman comes calling at your door. Oh – that’s right – you probably don’t pay much or any federal taxes or you would have a different view point.

Wonder what Obama is going to do with my 36K tax payment this year?

Velvet_Jones
03-24-2009, 09:57 AM
Like I said, your plan is income contingent voting rights.

That stands on it's own as a disasterously bad idea.

You spelted disasterously wrong.

Velvet_Jones
03-24-2009, 09:58 AM
Like I said, your plan is income contingent voting rights.

That stands on it's own as a disasterously bad idea.

Just using the Banyon method of discrediting you.

Velvet_Jones
03-24-2009, 09:59 AM
Like I said, your plan is income contingent voting rights.

That stands on it's own as a disasterously bad idea.

BTW - have you told that cute son of yours that you help spend 3 trillion dollars of his future?

jAZ
03-24-2009, 10:01 AM
I disagree as long as we have a federal income tax.

Yes, but you think old people, unemployed people and stay at home moms don't have a right to vote. So you are kinda on the fringe.

Garcia Bronco
03-24-2009, 10:05 AM
Yes, but you think old people, unemployed people and stay at home moms don't have a right to vote. So you are kinda on the fringe.

I don't care what kind of group name you put on people that don't pay taxes. If you aren't paying taxes then you have no logical right to have a say where it's spent. And stay at home moms can't stay at home without some type of income.

Ultra Peanut
03-24-2009, 10:09 AM
That is exactly the way I think your ideas should be taken. You are such a pompous ass.Who teabagged your mother in front of you, lo those years ago?

jAZ
03-24-2009, 10:12 AM
I just do this because I think you are stupid and a liar. You are the epitome of why your boy got elected: stupid, white, guilt ridden and lazy. You are being used as a useful idiot and are too stupid to know it. Your chickens are about to come home to roost. I can’t wait to see you squirming, trying to justify what your savior is currently doing and what he will do in the future. It’s already starting to show. Keep putting on that happy face – because you are going to need it.

I wouldn’t be doing this if you hadn’t been such a complete lying jackass the last 7 years.

Good luck living in this utopia that you promoted. I hope the taxman comes calling at your door. Oh – that’s right – you probably don’t pay much or any federal taxes or you would have a different view point.

Wonder what Obama is going to do with my 36K tax payment this year?
You may feel this way, but actions don't match the words of your prior post. That's easy enough for everyone who sees your antics to determine for themselves though. It's why I don't spend much time bickering with you. Like Garcia Bronco in this thread, there's not much *there* there.

Velvet_Jones
03-24-2009, 10:13 AM
Who teabagged your mother in front of you, lo those years ago?

Your Momma tea bagged her. Anything else?

Garcia Bronco
03-24-2009, 10:15 AM
You may feel this way, but actions don't match the words of your prior post. That's easy enough for everyone who sees your antics to determine for themselves though. It's why I don't spend much time bickering with you. Like Garcia Bronco in this thread, there's not much *there* there.

If I were you I wouldn't bicker with me either. You get owned ever time.

Ultra Peanut
03-24-2009, 10:16 AM
Your Momma tea bagged her. Anything else?That makes about as much sense as the rest of your posts, I guess.

Velvet_Jones
03-24-2009, 10:21 AM
You may feel this way, but actions don't match the words of your prior post. That's easy enough for everyone who sees your antics to determine for themselves though. It's why I don't spend much time bickering with you. Like Garcia Bronco in this thread, there's not much *there* there.

You chose to ignore the truth about yourself. Thats fine. At least I'm not trotting out someone else's talking points every day. When are you going to become your own man instead of being a pawn for your savior?

Velvet_Jones
03-24-2009, 10:22 AM
That makes about as much sense as the rest of your posts, I guess.

Get off my mamma - I just got off of yours.

jAZ
03-24-2009, 10:23 AM
If I were you I wouldn't bicker with me either. You get owned ever time.

Yes, that's what happened here.

ROFL

Velvet_Jones
03-24-2009, 10:25 AM
Get off my mamma - I just got off of yours.

I had to roll over twice to get off that big fat ass too.

jAZ
03-24-2009, 10:25 AM
You chose to ignore the truth about yourself. Thats fine. At least I'm not trotting out someone else's talking points every day. When are you going to become your own man instead of being a pawn for your savior?
Right now. You've changed me forever. Thanks for all the effort. But make sure to follow me around for the next few years in case I fall from grace again. I need you more than you'll ever now.

In Velvet's name, I pray.

Velvet_Jones
03-24-2009, 10:28 AM
Right now. You've changed me forever. Thanks for all the effort. But make sure to follow me around for the next few years in case I fall from grace again. I need you more than you'll ever now.

In Velvet's name, I pray.

It won't be a couple years - it will be in the next few months. And I'm going to laugh my ass off.

patteeu
03-24-2009, 11:49 AM
:shake: Yea, poll taxes have such a good history in our country

And? We have a shady history in public education too, so is that a stand-alone argument against public education? No... it isn't.

patteeu
03-24-2009, 11:56 AM
Your ideas stand on their own lack of merit Garcia Bronco. No need to take them seriously.

It's easy to dismiss a radical proposal summarized in one, throw-away line, but that doesn't mean the concept has no merit. I think what's at the heart of Garcia's proposal is well worth taking seriously, i.e. the idea that our tax code has negative political consequences such as a disparate impact that divides the voting population into warring camps of tax code victims and tax code beneficiaries.

Garcia Bronco
03-24-2009, 12:01 PM
It's easy to dismiss a radical proposal summarized in one, throw-away line, but that doesn't mean the concept has no merit. I think what's at the heart of Garcia's proposal is well worth taking seriously, i.e. the idea that our tax code has negative political consequences such as a disparate impact that divides the voting population into warring camps of tax code victims and tax code beneficiaries.

Exactly. Ultimately the goal is to stop the upper class from keeping the middle and lower classes fighting with each ather with a flat tax that's the same percentage for all.

KC native
03-24-2009, 12:11 PM
And? We have a shady history in public education too, so is that a stand-alone argument against public education? No... it isn't.

So are you trying to say that poll taxes are a good thing?

patteeu
03-24-2009, 01:09 PM
So are you trying to say that poll taxes are a good thing?

It depends. That's my point.

If requiring people to pay a dollar or two for a voter registration card with picture ID is a poll tax then I think it's an excellent thing.

And I have no problem with the basic idea behind Garcia Bronco's radical idea. My preferred approach would be to require all voters to pay their fair share of taxes (as defined by me, of course) rather than prevent non taxpayers from voting, but the concepts are similar.

KC native
03-24-2009, 01:14 PM
It depends. That's my point.

If requiring people to pay a dollar or two for a voter registration card with picture ID is a poll tax then I think it's an excellent thing.

And I have no problem with the basic idea behind Garcia Bronco's radical idea. My preferred approach would be to require all voters to pay their fair share of taxes (as defined by me, of course) rather than prevent non taxpayers from voting, but the concepts are similar.

So the history of how poll taxes are used to discriminate doesn't matter to you?

Isn't the point of a democracy that everyone who can vote do so?

patteeu
03-24-2009, 01:19 PM
So the history of how poll taxes are used to discriminate doesn't matter to you?

History should inform our decisions about the future. I'm not in favor of a poll tax for the purpose of denying the vote to any particular ethnic group.

Isn't the point of a democracy that everyone who can vote do so?

What do you mean by "everyone who can vote"? We don't let everyone vote now. We have age requirements. We have citizenship requirements. We even disenfranchise some people who break the law.

Garcia Bronco
03-24-2009, 01:20 PM
So the history of how poll taxes are used to discriminate doesn't matter to you?

Isn't the point of a democracy that everyone who can vote do so?

The South from 1900-60's were keeping blacks from voting period. It didn't even matter if you paid the poll taxes.



Isn't the point of a democracy that everyone who can vote do so?

Then why don't we allow 4 year-olds to vote?

KC native
03-24-2009, 01:23 PM
History should inform our decisions about the future. I'm not in favor of a poll tax for the purpose of denying the vote to any particular ethnic group.



What do you mean by "everyone who can vote"? We don't let everyone vote now. We have age requirements. We have citizenship requirements. We even disenfranchise some people who break the law.

Again, the context whore rears it's head. You know damn good and well that I mean people who are allowed to vote by law.

Garcia Bronco
03-24-2009, 01:26 PM
Again, the context whore rears it's head. You know damn good and well that I mean people who are allowed to vote by law.

The states can change their laws to allow those any age under 18 to vote if the decide to do so.

patteeu
03-24-2009, 01:31 PM
Again, the context whore rears it's head. You know damn good and well that I mean people who are allowed to vote by law.

That reduces to a circular argument since were talking about what that law should be. But now that you clarify, I'll say that the answer to your question is no.

BTW, I'm not sure you understand arguments about context.

Garcia Bronco
03-24-2009, 01:34 PM
LOL. Native left me the neg rep. Here buddy. You can have some positive rep from me.

KC native
03-24-2009, 01:36 PM
That reduces to a circular argument since were talking about what that law should be. But now that you clarify, I'll say that the answer to your question is no.

BTW, I'm not sure you understand arguments about context.

So, you're in favor of taking away the voting rights of people (who are currently allowed to vote by law since you're going to be a nitpicky douche about it) by instituting a poll tax?

KC native
03-24-2009, 01:38 PM
LOL. Native left me the neg rep. Here buddy. You can have some positive rep from me.

felt it was better than continuing with one line nonsense.

Garcia Bronco
03-24-2009, 01:38 PM
So, you're in favor of taking away the voting rights of people (who are currently allowed to vote by law since you're going to be a nitpicky douche about it) by instituting a poll tax?

No jackass. That's me. Pat was looking at the same results but from a different methodology.

Garcia Bronco
03-24-2009, 01:39 PM
felt it was better than continuing with one line nonsense.

Just remember you are a chicken shit and you wouldn't say that to anyones face.

patteeu
03-24-2009, 01:55 PM
So, you're in favor of taking away the voting rights of people (who are currently allowed to vote by law since you're going to be a nitpicky douche about it) by instituting a poll tax?

I'm not against it, but it would depend on the specifics.

BucEyedPea
03-24-2009, 02:05 PM
LOL. Native left me the neg rep. Here buddy. You can have some positive rep from me.

I put him on ignore. Snide put downs....excessive use of "you" as in what's wrong with you on a personal level. He's all ad hominem. Typical commie. What a piece of work. Not an honorable opponent at all.

BucEyedPea
03-24-2009, 02:06 PM
BTW what's wrong with discrimination? Don't we all do this daily. Zero discrimination is stupid.

KC native
03-24-2009, 02:08 PM
I put him on ignore. Snide put downs....excessive use of "you" as in what's wrong with you on a personal level. He's all ad hominem. Typical commie. What a piece of work. Not an honorable opponent at all.

ROFLYou're just mad you can't prove that the gold supply is elastic and that I've easily thrashed your economic ideology.

KC native
03-24-2009, 02:09 PM
Just remember you are a chicken shit and you wouldn't say that to anyones face.

ROFL Because it makes you a tough guy to type tough on the internet. Anything else tough guy typer? ROFL

Garcia Bronco
03-24-2009, 02:24 PM
ROFL Because it makes you a tough guy to type tough on the internet. Anything else tough guy typer? ROFL

I am just saying you sent a personal message to me, that you personally wouldn't deliver to anyones face. I apologize if you took it another way.

KC native
03-24-2009, 02:30 PM
I am just saying you sent a personal message to me, that you personally wouldn't deliver to anyones face. I apologize if you took it another way.

Let me know if you ever come to Dallas-Fort Worth because I would be more than willing to make a trip to the airport and call you a jackass to your face. :thumb:

Garcia Bronco
03-24-2009, 02:31 PM
Let me know if you ever come to Dallas-Fort Worth because I would be more than willing to make a trip to the airport and call you a jackass to your face. :thumb:

I'll try.