• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

No wrongdoing for ACORN in Cal.

Ziggurat said:
According to some definitions. Not according to others.
Click to expand...

You confuse "Defamatory Statement" with a valid defamation case.

In other words, what you wrote wasn't the complete story, since you never even mentioned truth before. Which means O'Keefe matching your listed criteria doesn't mean he's liable. Thank you SO much for figuring that out. Except you didn't, I had to tell you.[/QUOTE]

You're almost correct. O'Keefe would not be liable if he could prove that the allegation he made was TRUE. Since it is not, he would be fully liable for libel.
 
Ziggurat said:
A lawsuit could have provided them with the tapes. I guess you must share tyr's opinion that ACORN is just craven.
Click to expand...

Both ACORN and the Democratic party showed themselves to be craven in this matter. They let themselves be intimidated by a lying punk and a bunch of morons around the country that became highly aroused by the calumny heaped on the organization.

ACORN should have fought, but the D's were even worse. They voted to cut funding right along with the Republicans that wanted to honor O'Keefe.

But morons and cowards getting fooled by a liar doesn't excuse the liar. Otherwise Bernie Madoff would be a free man.
 
TraneWreck said:
But you've tried to evade the point of the video. It dealt specifically with California because we have the full, unedited tapes. When we see the full, unedited tapes from the other offices, we will be able to see what happened there.
Click to expand...
Brown saw the full tapes, that's why he identified the corruption on the part of the other ACORN workers. Just to be clear then, you maintain that
* The disposition of confidential documents in violation of state civil laws.
* Voter registration fraud in the 2008 election.
* Improper accounting for charitable donations.
* Non-filing of tax forms.
does not constitute "wrongdoing", and corruption on the part of ACORN employees outside of California should be ignored.
 
Neally said:
Brown saw the full tapes, that's why he identified the corruption on the part of the other ACORN workers. Just to be clear then, you maintain that
* The disposition of confidential documents in violation of state civil laws.
* Voter registration fraud in the 2008 election.
* Improper accounting for charitable donations.
* Non-filing of tax forms.
does not constitute "wrongdoing", and corruption on the part of ACORN employees outside of California should be ignored.
Click to expand...

I guess you're upset because I didn't put the word "criminal" in the thread title. I know, I'll commit seppuku. By "wrongdoing" I meant "criminal wrongdoing," but the non-criminal "wrongs" were so mild that the original statement holds under all but the most anal of readings.

1) Voter registration fraud is a non-issue. They only found about the fraud because ACORN, pursuant to law, notified the states of the names on the lists they submitted that they believed were fraudulent. I'll care about that voter fraud when someone any place in the country can find a single fraudulent vote that was cast because of ACORN. Also, that had nothing to do with the tapes.

2) They dumped confidential info in the trash and failed to file a state tax return. Not great things to do, but not a big deal, which is why Brown didn't pursue them. See his quote on the matter above.

3) As for the cheritable donations, I don't really know to what you are specifically refering. If you post a link, I'll be able to say more.

Finally, all of this is an attempt to distract from the essence of this issue: O'Keefe blatantly lied to destroy an organization that does important, unique work at a level of competency and with integrity that exceeds most government contractors, especially those of the defense variety:

According to the nonpartisan Project on Government Oversight, the three largest government contractors – Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman – all have a history riddled with fraud and other illegal behavior. Altogether, the three companies engaged in 109 instances of misconduct since 1995, and were fined $2.9 billion. How were they punished? In one year alone, the big-three pocketed $77 billion in government contracts in 2007.
Click to expand...

http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=99346D22-DDDF-46FD-A672-16FFD941CE79

Now, if that sort of behavior doesn't result in loss of funding, the minor, non-criminal infractions of ACORN shouldn't either.

But it is interesting that you won't defend O'Keefe on the merits. You do agree those videos were horrificly manipulated?
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
What part of "Go back further" do you not understand?

I outlined a scenario. Under this scenario, according to Cavemonster, I would be liable for slander. You claim otherwise. Sort it out with him why he's wrong.
Click to expand...


Nope, continuing fail.

In your scenario, as I said before, you would have made a defamatory statement but not been liable.

The fact that you do not possess the intellectual curiosity to determine why is not my, nor cavemonster's, issue.

eta: Oh phooey, Cavemonster did your homework for you in post 54. Here I was hoping I could get you to think.
 
Last edited:
quixotecoyote said:
Nope, continuing fail.

In your scenario, as I said before, you would have made a defamatory statement but not been liable.

The fact that you do not possess the intellectual curiosity to determine why is not my, nor cavemonster's, issue.
Click to expand...

I'm fully aware of why, and have been from the start. That you do not understand why that reason is in conflict with Cavemonster's original claims is not my issue.

eta: Oh phooey, Cavemonster did your homework for you in post 54. Here I was hoping I could get you to think.
Click to expand...

Oh, phooey, I already responded to that post. Here I was hoping you were paying attention.
 
Ziggurat said:
A lawsuit could have provided them with the tapes. I guess you must share tyr's opinion that ACORN is just craven.
Click to expand...

Yes everything is ACORN's fault.

Zig approves of propaganda and lies being fed to the American people, but it's ACORN's fault for not filing a lawsuit. :rolleyes:
 
Ziggurat said:
Oh, phooey, I already responded to that post. Here I was hoping you were paying attention.
Click to expand...

Source fail. You quoted an 'advice for bloggers' site which told you what a successful defamation claim required.

Had you looked a real legal definition like the ones provided for you, you would have seen otherwise. But instead you preferred to cherrypick until you found a paraphrase you thought supported you.
 
applecorped said:
It is?
Click to expand...

Brought up in this thread it seems. That they are to blame because they haven't filed a lawsuit, or that nothing wrong was done because they didn't file a lawsuit, is fallacious.

That's like saying, 'it's true because they said it on TV and there are truth in advertising laws'.
 
quixotecoyote said:
Source fail.
Click to expand...

Comprehension fail. You still don't understand that what you said conflicts with what Cavemonster originally said. Hell, you can't even figure out that Cavemonster changed his position in the more recent post you referred to.
 
tyr_13 said:
Yes everything is ACORN's fault.

Zig approves of propaganda and lies being fed to the American people, but it's ACORN's fault for not filing a lawsuit. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Nice straw man you've got there. I'm sure it will keep the crows aware from your corn.

Surely you can do better than this.
 
Ziggurat said:
Comprehension fail. You still don't understand that what you said conflicts with what Cavemonster originally said. Hell, you can't even figure out that Cavemonster changed his position in the more recent post you referred to.
Click to expand...

No, he and I both understand and agree completely. You're lagging behind a bit though.
 
Ziggurat said:
All I can say is, no lawyer in the country would take ACORN's case on contingency. There's a reason they haven't filed suit: they don't have a case.
Click to expand...
They're broke as hell. They didn't even fight against a case against them in Ohio that accused them of following the law.
 
Cavemonster said:
No, he and I both understand and agree completely.
Click to expand...

You might understand him, but he clearly doesn't understand you, because he still doesn't get that you backtracked. Either that, or he's just dishonest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom