Barack Obama says ACORN Will Shape My Domestic Policy

Wow, just wow...... Do you even read what you paste or.....?

TRUTH: ACORN was the first to report this fraud in the first place

TRUTH: What really happened was they hired a bunch of losers and paid them by quota to get voters registered. These people used made up names and names they grabbed out of the phonebook to inflate the numbers so they'd get paid.

Now.... any non JOE SIXPACK (read: an educated or even mildly informed individual) knows that what this means is that the only people who got scammed were ACORN....

That is..... unless you want to state here on DP right now for everyone that you believe Daffy R. Duck will show up and vote for Obama on Nov. 4th.... Any republican volunteers want to fess up that they believe that?

 

Confused with your reply. Did I read it? Yes, it is relevant to the discussion. Do you not like the drive-by media ABC? The requirement to become a registered voter should be to present an ID

 

We were talking about voters - adults who are 18+

 

I was questioning Homebiz who said 'It is against the law not to have a state issued ID on you at all time in every state' not your post

 

But his was following mine and I think what he wrote is correct.

He never said kids (aka your son, unless your son is now over 18, but I thought he was much much younger.)

 

Your post was not stating it was an outright fact, but an 'if I'm not mistaken'

I don't believe it is correct at all, I have even done searches and found nothing stating in all 50 states by law you need an ID on you at all times.

If it is a law, it surely is a law not actively prosecuted. Hell even watching cops, people all the time w/o id's yet never busted for not having an ID but busted for everything else they can get them on.

 

Confused? Let me help you.... You were pointing at ACORN as to cast it in a negative light. Were you not? I set you straight. That is all.

Care to disagree on that point?.... thought not.


As for requiring ID to register I don't see any problem with that. However comma, let's not try and trick slow thinker "joe sixpack" types into thinking this is a national crisis in voter fraud! As long as you have to provide an ID when ACTUALLY VOTING your fear tactic call to arms about voter registration are a moot point.

If their name is registered AND they show up with a valid state ID that says they're name is Daffy Duck they will be allowed to vote. I assure you... because I know the mccain spin campaign has your head spinning with all the directions it's going in, that a voter who REGISTERS will not count as a VOTE for Obama until they actually show up to VOTE.

It's ok, you can come out from under the covers now.

 

This concept was tested years ago, with the Landmark Supreme Court case in KOLENDER v. LAWSON, 461 U.S. 352 (1983, basically, a challenge to the arbitrary right of law enforcement to demand identification of "wandering" or "loitering" individuals.

The Court held with the Defendant-Appellee, stating that the California law requiring presentation of identification on demand, absent probable cause of any suspected crime, was unconstitutionally vague; basically, an undue intrusion on the right of citizens to free movement and liberty:

 

ACORN is a negative light and it's fair to cast them as such. That's why they are being investigated for voter registration fraud in more than a dozen states and partly responsible for the mortgage meltdown crisis through their deliberate and bullying tactics to force mortgage lenders to lend to those otherwise unqualified.

 

Sure it is fair that you should cast them as such, but not fair to do so without discussing why they are being investigated.

I propose that saying they are being investigated for voter registration fraud doesn't quite tell the whole story. But then again, when you tell the whole story the light gets brighter and less shadowy. Which I assume might be a little counter-productive for McCain.

 

I don't have any question as to why they are being investigated. It seems to have been covered pretty well in several recent stories. I can't imagine anyone wanting to defend ACORN for their actions.

 

That's good. An informed conservative (to me anyway) makes for a much better discussion than an uninformed one because too much time gets wasted getting them to acknowledge basic truths.

The problem arises when you assume that the rest of the people watching or reading know what you know. For example assuming that everyone knows he is not personally a terrorist while trying to discuss his ties to former terrorists. Or that everyone know she's not an Arab or Muslim while repeatedly reminding people his middle name is Hussein.

Now, gosh be me I'm sure those are all not the intention of said rhetoric, but in this case it's safe to say the devil lies in the assumptions.

 

Thanks. I too prefer not to get in to the over dramatization and analyzation of every word in a discussion.

Good points. I don't believe for a minute that Obama is a terrorist OR a muslim. I'd like to think most others know that as well. The fact that Obama has associated with a former domestic terrorist, more so than he originally stated, doesn't even remotely suggest anything about Obama being "a terrorist." I believe most see it as a judgement call on his part, as with all the other questionable associations he's had. However, that's not the topic of discussion regarding ACORN.

You have a point. I can't imagine anyone assuming ACORN is devoid of anything unethical with so many investigations and discoveries.

 

I pasted an article about voter fraud and ACORN. They are being investigated by 16 states the latest number I heard. Obama gave them close to 1 million dollars in the primaries to register voters to defeat the female Clinton.

No,you are right, That is positive.

 

Now that's news to me. Link that one up please.

Obama's formal kick-off to announce his run for state senate was at the Hyde Park Ramada Inn on Sept. 19, 1995. If Ackerman's recollection is correct--that the event at Ayers home was really for Palmer and Obama just piggy backed on it--then any argument that the Obama's political career was launched in the Ayers home is moot. I think he has become a different person (just like McCain has since 2000) and I firmly believe that he doesn't associate with them now and hasn't for quite some time (13 years). So what that has to do with what you really believe he will do about our economy and our standing in the global community is still unclear to me.

I think I, along with a small majority are watching McCain bring up Ayers over and over again and are having a tough time understanding what that has to do with his politics now. I mean what do you mean by judgment? Are you saying that you think his judgment to allow himself to be associated with Ayers means he will open the borders to terrorists? What exactly are you getting at there?

But I understand where you're coming from because I'm fully aware that every time Obama or a surrogate utters the word "erratic", or says "he just doesn't get it" it's also code for he's too old. I personally wish it just meant what I take it to mean and that is that he has been all over the map in terms of strategy, policies, positions, you name it.

 

That's a big "if," of which I haven't seen anything to corroborate. Whether McCain is different today or not, one thing we know for sure is, he didn't launch his campaign in the home of an abortion clinic bomber and had he done so, I submit that the tides and accountability for such would be considerably different. As I recently posted in another threads, Republicans are often held to higher standards than Democrats. This would be a good example of such.

It doesn't. We haven't been discussing those issues. We've been dancing around the corrupt ACORN issues and Obama's role in the organization, as well as their direct participation in activities that have led to the current financial situation our country is facing.

However, I'd be more than happy to discuss those issues. While I have been less than active lately, I do monitor and bookmark articles of relevance for future discussions.

As I stated earlier, I don't believe anyone (I certainly could be wrong) believes Obama is a terrorist for associating with and allowing a former domestic terrorist to launch his political career in his home. It leads to a broader pattern of association with shady characters. Wright (a legitimate issue), Resko, Ayers, ACORN, and others. Collectively, it raises an eyebrow.

I'd rather see McCain going after Obama on his direct links to the current financial meltdown. Perhaps he will. He'd be far better off going after him there, questioning how someone who was part of the problem can be part of the solution.

It's expected though. Ironically, I've seen a lot of former Ron Paul supporters that moved back to the far left after his dismal failure, using the "old" card as well, perhaps not recounting that their own candidate is the same age as McCain.

It's not going to get any nicer or politer over the next few weeks. McCain has been too reserved. This is politics, not a Saturday morning gathering at the Hilton for breakfast. The real question at this point, is what are the respective campaign's strategy for an October surprise? We know something is coming. I believe last time, the NYT help facilitate John Kerry's, though for the life of me, I can't even recall what it was. Didn't work though, thank heavens!

 

Here is a quote from the Wall Street Journal.

source

 

Thanks, looks like I have some fact checking to do

Well that was fast. Citizen Services Inc which is the organization that the $832k was supposedly paid to doesn't actually appear to be an ACORN affiliate.

A lot of conservative blogs are trying like hell to make that connection but none have come up with anything. Is there a clear definitive connection?

 

mccain loves ACORN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdlgiqCzch8
Mccain around 1.50

 

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/features/breen/index.html