ACORN is at it again.(Investigation underway)

Iron Archer said:

I don't remember the part of the TOS where it says it's ok to be a dick to people in the message board if they happen to be conservative or actually bring up factual stories that run contrary to your bias. I guess the TOS could have been updated after the HD crash a while back

Click to expand...

Seriously? You're going to bring up the terms of service in your defense?

Like we all abide by it 100% of the time and it's upheld with absolute justice, no one slips through the cracks. Please.
You sound like such a tool. If the TOS were applied with total consistency then most of wouldn't be here right now. Not you, not me, not Billy, same for a lot of people.

How you can even reference this in your defense is laughable.

Iron Archer said:

LET IT GO ALREADY. I can just imagine Billy's tombstone is going to have something about the 2000 election on it. "Gore should have won" or something to that effect.

Click to expand...

You're a funny guy.
You need to operationalize your definition of "being a dick" because I think you'd fit it, too.

Is the election season over yet? Jesus christ...









BANG ZOOM. STRAIGHT TO THE MOON, ALICE.

The Dopefish said:

I believe that I will begin an impartial investigation into why there are a bunch of crazy right-wingers running rampant on this message board. That sounds like an idea everyone will agree with.

Click to expand...

Oh yeah, we're just crazy that's it. You're starting to sound like that kook Michael Savage, who believes liberalism is a mental disorder.

See? Azura knows what I'm talkin' about.

Polly ticks and she tocks.

Iron Archer said:

Oh yeah, we're just crazy that's it. You're starting to sound like that kook Michael Savage, who believes liberalism is a mental disorder.

Click to expand...

Yeah, only I'm not making any particularly nasty or partisan statements, short of "You're all a bunch of right-wing nutbags". I'm entitled to my opinion, just as much as you are. I'm just saying, maybe your point of view is less sane or reasonable (reasoned?) than most others. If that offends you, either I'm sorry or there is a problem greater than you or me. Which line of thought do you subscribe to?

I personally don't care about Acorn's voting crap.

I care about how Obama and Acorn sued banks because rates weren't fair. Which lead to some messed up loans, which lead to this entire mess. People blame the bank mess on the banks, but they didn't do these loans because it was good for business or made them money, but because they were forced too.

But I guess you guys care about dead people voting more. Sure, its a problem and it should be taken care of, but out of all the things that they did and all the things that manner what I said manners more.

Just saying..

Larkin said:

I personally don't care about Acorn's voting crap.

I care about how Obama and Acorn sued banks because rates weren't fair. Which lead to some messed up loans, which lead to this entire mess. People blame the bank mess on the banks, but they didn't do these loans because it was good for business or made them money, but because they were forced too.

Click to expand...

I care about both, but yea the whole sub-prime mortgage law suites is definitely one of their great achievements... as I mentioned earlier in this thread. I think it was just prior to the boob-fest

kiff said:

I care about both, but yea the whole sub-prime mortgage law suites is definitely one of their great achievements... as I mentioned earlier in this thread. I think it was just prior to the boob-fest

Click to expand...

Oh I missed that.

It was just a small paragraph after all.

Larkin said:

I personally don't care about Acorn's voting crap.

I care about how Obama and Acorn sued banks because rates weren't fair.

Click to expand...

Source?

I'm not saying is isn't true, I ask because I 've heard it no where else, and the only ACORN/Obama lawyering that I'm aware of was for a Motor-Voter case, in which Obama represented not only ACORN but also many other groups that support Motor-Voter such as the League Of Women Voters.

Anyway...

Did you know that approx 50% (maybe as high as 63%) of the people who got sub-prime loans qualified for traditional loans? They were fooled into sub-primes by "predatory lenders" who could charge them higher interest rates and who also got bigger commissions for doing so?

Did you know that banks also packaged these sub-prime mortgages and sold them to other banks for a profit? The banks assumed that the housing prices would continue to rise, thus making the mortgages worth more even if the borrower defaulted. If the borrower payed the mortgage like a good citizen then the bank got it's money plus a hefty interest rate. If the borrower defaults, the bank gets a house that's worth more than initial sell price. Win/Win! Nobody forced them to do that. The banks gambled and lost.

Anyway Part II...

As far as ACORN falsifying voter registration goes... burn 'em to the ground. They deserve it. And so do the people who purposely purge minorities and poor people from the voter registration rolls. I'm look'n at you Katherine Harris.

I support that an ID must be shown to vote (IDs should be easy and free to get). I also support that people who are "purged" get to vote on "provisional" ballots, and that their votes be counted in case of close elections if it is determine if their 'purging" was not legal. I also think that if voting equipment "breaks" in poorer precincts the voters are allowed to go to other precincts to vote. ID's and computer records should make this easy.

Azura said:

Click to expand...

Quoted for epic hawtness.

-fap fap fap fap fap-

Lizard Of Oz said:

Source?

I'm not saying is isn't true, I ask because I 've heard it no where else, and the only ACORN/Obama lawyering that I'm aware of was for a Motor-Voter case, in which Obama represented not only ACORN but also many other groups that support Motor-Voter such as the League Of Women Voters.

Click to expand...

You really haven't heard of this? The first case was against Citibank where they said the loans they gave where made in such a way to discriminate against low earning African Americans families. Other cases followed that one. The Citibank one Obama was a lawyer for Acorn that was making the claim.

Anyway, I will find a something for you. Give me a minute. Its just that I am finding it very hard to find anything on Acorn at the moment except this voter thing. I did find something about it on the Rush Limbaugh site, but I am trying to find something allot less bias then that. Again give me a moment.

Larkin said:

You really haven't heard of this? The first case was against Citibank where they said the loans they gave where made in such a way to discriminate against low earning African Americans families. Other cases followed that one. The Citibank one Obama was a lawyer for Acorn that was making the claim.

Anyway, I will find a something for you. Give me a minute. Its just that I am finding it very hard to find anything on Acorn at the moment except this voter thing. I did find something about it on the Rush Limbaugh site, but I am trying to find something allot less bias then that. Again give me a moment.

Click to expand...

Here's the basics of the case you cite...

Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctiverelief, actual damages, and punitive damages.

U.S. District Court Judge Ruben Castillo certified the Plaintiffs’ suit as a class action on June 30, 1995. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1995). Also on June 30, Judge Castillo granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery of a sample of Defendant-bank’s loan application files. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 338 (N.D. Ill. 1995).

Click to expand...

Looks to me like they were suing Citibank because they felt Citibank was not granting loans to minorities with the same financial qualifications as some white people.

Lizard Of Oz said:

I support that an ID must be shown to vote (IDs should be easy and free to get). I also support that people who are "purged" get to vote on "provisional" ballots, and that their votes be counted in case of close elections if it is determine if their 'purging" was not legal. I also think that if voting equipment "breaks" in poorer precincts the voters are allowed to go to other precincts to vote. ID's and computer records should make this easy.

Click to expand...

ID is at the root of the problem. I understand why most people don't want to go beyond a simple driving licence but there can be a few advantages to a personalized id card.

The Dopefish said:

Yeah, only I'm not making any particularly nasty or partisan statements, short of "You're all a bunch of right-wing nutbags". I'm entitled to my opinion, just as much as you are. I'm just saying, maybe your point of view is less sane or reasonable (reasoned?) than most others. If that offends you, either I'm sorry or there is a problem greater than you or me. Which line of thought do you subscribe to?

Click to expand...

"less sane or reasonable". In what way? So now not supporting Obama is "less sane or reasonable" than most other people's opinions in this message board? Wow. What is not sane about my non-support for Obama? Are you saying that anyone NOT supporting Obama is insane? I'd like to know the symptoms of my insanity, because you have not given me any good examples of how I've acted unreasonably, unless you're saying that anything against Obama is unreasonable. In any case, many people here are completely unreasonable in their blind support for Obama and denial of any negative connotations associated with Obama.

Oh and by the way, BillyBadAss's assertion that Obama has it in the bag (kinda like Kerry did back in '04)... I'd just like to remind him of this:

Interviewing for the 2004 exit polls was the most inaccurate of any in the past five presidential elections as procedural problems compounded by the refusal of large numbers of Republican voters to be surveyed led to inflated estimates of support for John F. Kerry, according to a report released yesterday by the research firms responsible for the flawed surveys.

Click to expand...

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22188-2005Jan19.html

Iron Archer said:

"less sane or reasonable". In what way? So now not supporting Obama is "less sane or reasonable" than most other people's opinions in this message board? Wow. What is not sane about my non-support for Obama? Are you saying that anyone NOT supporting Obama is insane? I'd like to know the symptoms of my insanity, because you have not given me any good examples of how I've acted unreasonably, unless you're saying that anything against Obama is unreasonable. In any case, many people here are completely unreasonable in their blind support for Obama and denial of any negative connotations associated with Obama.

Click to expand...

What he is saying is that Neo-Cons don't the same political beliefs that Democrats and the majority of the free world share. That makes Neo-Cons the black sheep and when the majority is against you, that's pretty cut and dry that you are wrong.

In all fairness; there are a lot of child molesters that think they are right too, but they are locked up. They can think the way they want, but the free world put them away. So I guess you have the right to your own political beliefs. I just don't think they are right.

Cnn Lou Reeds show I love how CNN figured it out.

Link

link

Related Link

Glenn Beck on it

I got more, but that would be to much to read for just one post. I will post them if needed.

BillyBadAss said:

What he is saying is that Neo-Cons don't the same political beliefs that Democrats and the majority of the free world share. That makes Neo-Cons the black sheep and when the majority is against you, that's pretty cut and dry that you are wrong.

In all fairness; there are a lot of child molesters that think they are right too, but they are locked up. They can think the way they want, but the free world put them away. So I guess you have the right to your own political beliefs. I just don't they they are right.

Click to expand...

Well that is pretty retarded to say. Sense when does being the majority make you right?

Azura said:

Click to expand...

You really like such grotesquely oversized prosthetics? I think it's pretty disgusting. The only thing more disgusting than a woman with fake tits is an anorexic woman with fake tits (i.e. the average pornstar); I seriously wouldn't touch one of those with a 10 ft pole, natural beauty ftw!