Merged Andrew Breitbart has died

[Neally]

Accusations are evidence? How many convictions? 1? Seriously? That's your evidence? Dude, come on. Large organizations are at risk of human error. You have not proven systemic corruption. Not even close.

If you don't accept 30+ incidents across multiple states as evidence of widespread fraud, that the brother of ACORN's founder Wade Rathke, was found to have embezzled $948,607.50 from the group and affiliated charitable organizations and the executives covered it up from the board and when the board found out and 2 members demanded all the information, they were fired, tells me that you are hardly looking at this objectively. The evidence couldn't be much clearer.

 

[RandFan]

Newt Gingrich Committed Massive Voter Fraud! (According to GOP/Fox 'News' ACORN Stand

Source

If the same standards are applied to Newt Gingrich as have, for years, been applied to the now-defunct ACORN organization by both Republicans and their media arm, Fox "News", then it seems Newt Gingrich's campaign has committed thousands of acts of voter fraud.

Voter registration is ripe for individuals to commit fraud. Do bad employes make the organization (Gingrich) guilty?

I think ACORN was not sufficiently vigilant to stop wrong doing. That doesn't make ACORN guilty of fraud anymore than it makes Gingrich guilty of fraud.

 

[RandFan]

If you don't accept 30+ incidents across multiple states as evidence of widespread fraud....

Only if you accept that Gingrich is guilty of fraud.

...that the brother of ACORN's founder Wade Rathke, was found to have embezzled $948,607.50 from the group and affiliated charitable organizations and the executives covered it up from the board and when the board found out and 2 members demanded all the information, they were fired, tells me that you are hardly looking at this objectively. The evidence couldn't be much clearer.

The board demanded information? Doesn't that mean that only Wade Rathke is guilty of wrong doing? Show me the evidence that ACORN induced their employees to commit fraud, you know, like the investigations of Rupert Murdoch and his employees.

I'm not the one here who is not being objective. Not even close. You've tried and convicted an entire organization based solely on accusations against employees. Did Wade Rathke instruct employees to commit fraud? Or was he simply dishonestly trying to line his own pockets?

Oh, BTW, you forgot your source against Rathke.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

even if he had only the edited tape, he still behaved badly

I didn't misunderstand a thing. He had the video. The whole video. And he lied like a dog when he pretended innocence when caught. He didn't even lie convincingly. The only people who "believed" him wanted to believe him.

BenBurch,

The link I previously posted suggested that it was Mr. Breitbart's responsibility to contact Ms. Sherrod. I have seen nothing to suggest that he attempted to do so.

 

[Neally]

Voter registration is ripe for individuals to commit fraud. Do bad employes make the organization (Gingrich) guilty?

I think ACORN was not sufficiently vigilant to stop wrong doing. That doesn't make ACORN guilty of fraud anymore than it makes Gingrich guilty of fraud.

Any organization that has a documented history of systemic failure to properly mange their people the way ACORN did tells me it goes beyond being "vigilant". That plus all the other incidents I have cited paints a pretty clear picture. Kudos to Breitbart who helped expose them for what they are.

The board demanded information? Doesn't that mean that only Wade Rathke is guilty of wrong doing?

And the executives tried to cover it up then fired board members who wanted the full information. Let's see, brother of the founder is an embezzler within the organization, the executives of the organization attempt a coverup and fire people that want to know the truth, managers and low level employees are found to have committing voter registration fraud, yet the organization is is in no way fraudulent in your opinion.

Oh, BTW, you forgot your source against Rathke.

I didn't forget, it's just that anyone following ACORN is well aware of all this old news. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now

 

[RandFan]

Any organization that has a documented history of systemic failure to properly mange their people the way ACORN did tells me it goes beyond being "vigilant". That plus all the other incidents I have cited paints a pretty clear picture.

Oh BS.Skepticism? Critical thinking? You reject any and all other explanations even when you don't have convictions? Really?

Charlie White, Indiana Election Chief, Found Guilty Of Voter Fraud

By your logic it's beginning to look like the GOP is corrupt. Where are the convictions of all of the voter fraud alegedly committed by ACORN?

And the executives tried to cover it up then fired board members who wanted the full information. Let's see, brother of the founder is an embezzler within the organization, the executives of the organization attempt a coverup and fire people that want to know the truth, managers and low level employees are found to have committing voter registration fraud, yet the organization is is in no way fraudulent in your opinion.

Nexus? You know, that thing that directly ties the leaders to the low level employees. That thing that shows the criminality of the brother is linked to the low level employees? You know, like the emails from Murdochs organization and the testimony of employees show a pattern of corruption in the Murdoch empire. Do you have that?

Seriously, come on. You are aren't even trying now. Where is the causal link? Where is the smoking gun? Where are the emails instructing employees to commit fraud? Where are the witnesses that demonstrate a pattern of corruption? How do you eliminate the obvious alternative explanation? See Charlie White and Newt Gingrich.

If there were no emails or witnesses against Murdoch's organization demonstrating corruption, would it be fair to declare Murdoch and the leaders of corruption? Seriously? Yet that is exactly what you are doing without evidence. Where is your evidence?

 

[Neally]

Nexus? You know, that thing that directly ties the leaders to the low level employees. That thing that shows the criminality of the brother is linked to the low level employees? You know, like the emails from Murdochs organization and the testimony of employees show a pattern of corruption in the Murdoch empire. Do you have that?

Okay I give up. The repeated reference to Murdoch, Gingrich, and the GOP, and all your other hand waving away the facts tells me you're not about to approach this objectively.

 

[RandFan]

Okay I give up. The repeated reference to Murdoch, Gingrich, and the GOP, and all your other hand waving away the facts tells me you're not about to approach this objectively.

? Oh come on. I'm hand waving? You don't like it when I use your logic against Gingrich and the GOP? You don't like it that I compare real evidence of criminality (Murdoch) to this BS you trot out?

Sorry dude but that is seriously weak sauce.

 

[mhaze]

mhaze,

Mr. Breitbart strikes me as almost a conspiracy theorist in this clip, as well as someone with a great deal of anger. What I don't see is any evidence of rationality from Mr. Breitbart himself. President Obama is a totalitarian who would take away the right of the American Conservative Union to meet and speak out? I am not sure that I understand your point. What am I missing here? I have criticized the Obama administration on its lack of commitment to civil liberties, BTW.

That's a rather curious comment. Let's step through it. Breitbart says "I have tapes of Obama in his college days which show..."

Conspiracy theorist?

Let's talk about that after the tapes are released. Anyway, my experience is that "conspiracy theorist" is used generally as more a smear than a serious comment. At least around this forum.

Finally, the point of this thread, and what I've commented on, is the fundamental viciousness of the resident liberals, and the rather astonishing amount of hate they have. That's simply evident in the postings. It doesn't go away by double talk or rationalization, etc.

To put it bluntly, the posters here are showing exactly what kind of people they are.

I'm not directing this at you, by the way.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

silver pony tails and chefs

That's a rather curious comment. Let's step through it. Breitbart says "I have tapes of Obama in his college days which show..."

Conspiracy theorist?

The part about the silver pony tails in the 1980s (I may not have this verbatim): "And they plotted, and plotted..." The stuff about Obama advocating for radical elements at Harvard, well, I really have no idea what he means. However, I will look forward to the release of the tapes with interest.

 

[tyr_13]

I'm trying like hell to be reasonable, here, (hence, I suspect, the reason everyone seems to be ignoring everything I write... Oh, well.)

I'm pretty sure a large chunk of the posters here make a point to read your posts. Some of us just don't want to write 'I agree' every time, and those against what you say can't think of a way to assail your reasoning.

 

[Moss]

That's a rather curious comment. Let's step through it. Breitbart says "I have tapes of Obama in his college days which show..."

Conspiracy theorist?

Let's talk about that after the tapes are released. Anyway, my experience is that "conspiracy theorist" is used generally as more a smear than a serious comment. At least around this forum.

Finally, the point of this thread, and what I've commented on, is the fundamental viciousness of the resident liberals, and the rather astonishing amount of hate they have. That's simply evident in the postings. It doesn't go away by double talk or rationalization, etc.

To put it bluntly, the posters here are showing exactly what kind of people they are.

I'm not directing this at you, by the way.

I hope we get the complete tapes. Unlike some edits that have been issued by the deceased.
On another note: every posting shows some aspect of what kind of person the poster is. The repetition of that truism is wholly unnecessary.
Which posts are examples of "fundamental viciousness" and "astonishing amounts of hate" in your opinion? "This thread" is rather vague.

 

[tyr_13]

Some criticism, yes. But most of the criticism he's received about the incident is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what actually happened (plus frequently a willingness to assign motive without cause - see Thai's response just after yours).

Can you point out any of these 'fundamental misunderstandings'? I see a lot of people supporting their understanding of the case with facts and cites.

Yes, never assume malice when incompetence will do, but that wasn't the case with him. If you believe that Breitbart's attacks and lies were not based on malice, then you are going counter to the man's own words and actions.

 

[Neally]

? Oh come on. I'm hand waving? You don't like it when I use your logic against Gingrich and the GOP? You don't like it that I compare real evidence of criminality (Murdoch) to this BS you trot out?

Yes, hand waving, and I already said that any organization with a similar history to ACORN would be similarly called fraudulent. Your tu quote attempts at arguing are more on the level of much lesser ideologues than you on this board and I'm frankly surprised that you chose to take that route.

 

[BenBurch]

The tapes will have been edited. I can take a tape of anybody saying anything and make it say anything. I can also make it appear to be an unedited recording to most sorts of analysis currently thought to be reliable. I spent a lot of time doing that engineering.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Finally, the point of this thread, and what I've commented on, is the fundamental viciousness of the resident liberals, and the rather astonishing amount of hate they have.

Conservatives often project their own shortcommings onto their opponents.

 

[Ausmerican]

... much lesser ideologues than you on this board...

While there are certainly ideologues on this board I hop you werent calling RandFan one. This is a poster that has shifted his core beliefs several times over his years here as new evidence has presented itself. He is a fine example of what people are supposed[/] to do with critical thinking and, along with very few others such as Roadtoad, is generally respected by those arguing against him as well as for him.

As to Breitbart, I have no real opinion. Didn't know him, didn't like what I did know of him, basically ambivalent to the death of what was essentially a stranger.

 

[tyr_13]

Yes, hand waving, and I already said that any organization with a similar history to ACORN would be similarly called fraudulent. Your tu quote attempts at arguing are more on the level of much lesser ideologues than you on this board and I'm frankly surprised that you chose to take that route.

Oh, so you're defending ACORN. Now I understand.

 

[A'isha]

Yes, hand waving, and I already said that any organization with a similar history to ACORN would be similarly called fraudulent. Your tu quote attempts at arguing are more on the level of much lesser ideologues than you on this board and I'm frankly surprised that you chose to take that route.

Um, if you say that "any organization with a similar history to ACORN would be similarly called fraudulent", and RandFan gives you examples of organizations with similar histories that haven't been called "fraudulent", that's not a tu quoque, that's you being proven wrong in your assertion.

Which is probably why you immediately tried to handwave the whole thing away.

 

[Ziggurat]

The tapes will have been edited. I can take a tape of anybody saying anything and make it say anything. I can also make it appear to be an unedited recording to most sorts of analysis currently thought to be reliable. I spent a lot of time doing that engineering.

So a conspiracy theorist is indeed part of the thread - just not on the side I expected.