• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dinesh D’Souza Is Charged With Using Straw Donors to Give to a Campaign[W:55]

Re: Dinesh D’Souza Is Charged With Using Straw Donors to Give to a Campaign

Hey, if one is being intellectuall lazy, especially after one has been warned of doing so, somebody has to take the lazy to task, eh?

I more than partially agree with his premise: why should all of us defend and take responsibility for what the left has, through such methods as the media [ i.e., Hollywood, Television and the music industry] along with its highjacking of our educational system to fulfill its desires to create a depraved and degenerate popular culture then attempt to force feed this decadence to the rest of the globe... why should we all take blame for what the left has done to the formally high morality previously promulgated and shown to the world as a beacon, not the current embarrassment, of this proud nation?

One can easily understand how a prideful religious group might feel threatened by all the debauchery that shows little sign of dwindling and is, instead, gaining momentum in this country as your side barrels full steam ahead at breaking down all the barriers of propriety and decency.

Nah, he is spot on with this practical and insightful extrapolations...

For the love of God, they attacked the World Trade Center. Just in case you were not aware, it was not a playground for hippies, for ****'s sake. :roll: :doh
 
Re: Dinesh D’Souza Is Charged With Using Straw Donors to Give to a Campaign

For the love of God, they attacked the World Trade Center.

Or love of Allah, any way.......
 
Another Conservative that criticized Obama gets targetted by the government.

Heaven forbid a nutjob far righty would actually have to follow the law. :doh
 
Re: Dinesh D’Souza Is Charged With Using Straw Donors to Give to a Campaign

And sometimes you can

In this case, all I would need to know (that is, if I weren't already familiar with his drivel) is that he believes liberals caused 9/11

Well, in a certain perverse way it does make sense. Those traitors who want us to be just like them so they won't attack us do show a certain degree of logical consistency there, don't they?

Force our wimmins into Burkas, give our baby girls a clitorectomy, hang all the faggots in our public squares and we're good to go.
 
Re: Dinesh D’Souza Is Charged With Using Straw Donors to Give to a Campaign

For the love of God, they attacked the World Trade Center. Just in case you were not aware, it was not a playground for hippies, for ****'s sake. :roll: :doh
My initial suggestion to you is that in the future you should state clearly who you mean instead of using the rather ambiguous "they". Are you referencing the left [ it not being just a "playground for hippies" but perhaps you are saying it was a war ground for hippies, is that what you are attempting, albeit quite sloppily, to contend???] or is the "they" you cite supposed to be Al Qaeda... or is it some other amorphous group other than that, maybe even a group, "they", who may even call themselves "they"??? Who knows after your weird reference to hippies and such...

As I personally believe that it was Al Qaeda that was the group that attacked the Twin Trade Towers and the Pentagon, for the sake of trying to get to the bottom of, as well as address, whatever the point is that you are trying to make here... one is moved to ask, you are aware that Dinesh is not accusing America's cultural left of actually carrying out the attack, right?

Despite what others here are trying to imply, Dinesh never said [ at least anywhere I have read ] that the left caused the attacks, rather he said the left [ notice how I didn't just lazily use "they" in this instance... so you would know exactly who I am referencing?] was "...in large part responsible for the Muslim anger that led to the September 11 attacks." I am hoping that more of you on "that" side [the left] now understand it was this concept that DD was actually indicating in his book.

That help you out a bit, does it?
 
Let's don't act as if this is some great, immoral crime.

So, because you happen to support criminality as long as it serves the needs of your rigid ideology, you try to portray anybody who does not support either as engaging in an act?

Duly noted.
 
So, because you happen to support criminality as long as it serves the needs of your rigid ideology, you try to portray anybody who does not support either as engaging in an act?

Duly noted.

Was Desouza denied due process? Do you suppor someone's civil rights being violated for political reason?

Duly noted!
 
Re: Dinesh D’Souza Is Charged With Using Straw Donors to Give to a Campaign

That debate was far better than we generally see here, with all three actually having points and establishing them with previously considered thoughts plainly showing their scaffolding ... I did not find it to be the apex of debate by any of the participants, but all three at their very worst are better than most. The fact of the matter is that Hitchens didn't use D'Souza as a pinata as another poster stated erroneously here... and while Hitchens was generally the better overall speaker and debater in whichever venue he attended, I have never seen him just absolutely vanquish DD in any engagement that I have watched.

And I would go further to suggest that just because you may not agree with DD's points in that debate does not make them embarrassing nor does it make them incorrect.

There wouldn't happen to be more than one debate between D'Souza and Hitchens, would there?
 
Re: Dinesh D’Souza Is Charged With Using Straw Donors to Give to a Campaign

There wouldn't happen to be more than one debate between D'Souza and Hitchens, would there?

Christopher Hitchens vs Dinesh D'Souza - Freedom Fest [2008] - YouTube

Debate: Atheist vs Christian (Christopher Hitchens vs Dinesh D'Souza) - YouTube Notre Dame

Debate - Dinesh D'Souza vs Christopher Hitchens - Is Christianity the Problem? - YouTube King's College

These amongst others, seem to be different occasions when they debated each other... having a hard time with your youtube search function, are ya?
 
Re: Dinesh D’Souza Is Charged With Using Straw Donors to Give to a Campaign

Christopher Hitchens vs Dinesh D'Souza - Freedom Fest [2008] - YouTube

Debate: Atheist vs Christian (Christopher Hitchens vs Dinesh D'Souza) - YouTube Notre Dame

Debate - Dinesh D'Souza vs Christopher Hitchens - Is Christianity the Problem? - YouTube King's College

These amongst others, seem to be different occasions when they debated each other... having a hard time with your youtube search function, are ya?

Which of those is the debate you're talking about?

Edit: never mind, I found it. I'll get back to you.

I do enjoy a good evolution/creation debate, not so much for the creationist side since their logical fallacies and inability to understand evolution are always the same, but rather to see how the evolution side responds to them.
 
Last edited:
Re: Dinesh D’Souza Is Charged With Using Straw Donors to Give to a Campaign



What did you expect from President "Pick 'n Choose?"


That is harsh. Don't you know that the President twice said these words: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” ?

If the President were picking and choosing which laws to enforce, then he would not be faithfully executing the Office of President of the United States.

...and if Dinesh did what he was accused, then he should be tried. Then a jury can decide whether he is guilty, not guilty, or not guilty due to an unjust law (jury nullification).
 
You saying he's not guilty of anything? He's just a victim of a witch hunt?
So, to turn the tables, are you saying he is guilty of something? I think he has only be accused, right? That does not equate to guilt to you, does it? And yes, this could very well be a wild goose chase serving only the purpose of punishing DD for having the gall to tell the truth about the big zer O.
 
Re: Dinesh D’Souza Is Charged With Using Straw Donors to Give to a Campaign[W:55]

Watching the debate now, and Prager is off to a great start heaping all the world's evils onto secularists, lobbing endless ad homs, and of course (though this should go without saying), complete, unfiltered ignorance of what evolutions entails. He's really hanging his hat on "evolutionists believe we came from nothing." When somebody explains to him that evolutionists don't believe any such thing he's going to be super embarrassed.

Dinesh is so painfully ignorant about the history of civilization that it makes my head hurt.
 
Last edited:
Re: Dinesh D’Souza Is Charged With Using Straw Donors to Give to a Campaign

As you are well aware, calling something BS is not debate, it is just a lazy opinion without substance... thanks for confirming for me that I am right through your positioning on the topic, yet wasting my time once again.

Besides which, liberals don't have to step down due to failing to meet the left's standards as that standard is so low as to be nonexistent [ i.e., Clinton, Barney Frank, Gerry Studs ]. Kind of like the standards some hold around here with regards to actual debating. Dinesh, indeed, stepped down as we do, over on this side, have high standards and even the left expects us to uphold and live up to those standards.

David Vitter didn't step down. Neither did Steve LaTourette. Neither did Larry Craig, although he declined to run again.

Anthony Weiner stepped down. So did Eric Massa. So did David Wu. That's just in the last few years. You can cherry pick and/or ignore any instances you want to prove your "point." All that proves is how stunningly dishonest the argument is.

That's what's BULL**** about it. And the idea that simply calling it that "proves you right" is laughable to the point of absurdity.
 
Last edited:
Re: Dinesh D’Souza Is Charged With Using Straw Donors to Give to a Campaign

So, then, if money does not influence voting, why do candidates even bother to go through the trouble to raising money?

Do you vote according to campaign funding?
 
Re: Dinesh D’Souza Is Charged With Using Straw Donors to Give to a Campaign

Do you vote according to campaign funding?


Far too many vote according to the propaganda that spews forth during every election season - that "propaganda" which is paid for with "campaign funding". More money - more negative ads is the way it has played out.
 
Re: Dinesh D’Souza Is Charged With Using Straw Donors to Give to a Campaign

Far too many vote according to the propaganda that spews forth during every election season - that "propaganda" which is paid for with "campaign funding". More money - more negative ads is the way it has played out.


But not you, right?
 
Re: Dinesh D’Souza Is Charged With Using Straw Donors to Give to a Campaign

That is harsh. Don't you know that the President twice said these words: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” ?

If the President were picking and choosing which laws to enforce, then he would not be faithfully executing the Office of President of the United States.

...and if Dinesh did what he was accused, then he should be tried. Then a jury can decide whether he is guilty, not guilty, or not guilty due to an unjust law (jury nullification).

Equality under the law is a constitutional right...or, it was, anyway.

Straw-donor cases have been brought against prominnent individuals from time to time. For example, in 2011, a prominent Los Angeles attorney, Pierce O’Donnell, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor chargest of making $20,000 in donations to the presidential campaign of former Sen. John Edwards and reimbursing straw donors.

Conservative author and pundit Dinesh D’Souza charged in campaign finance case - The Washington Post

Yahoo!
 
Re: Dinesh D’Souza Is Charged With Using Straw Donors to Give to a Campaign

That debate was far better than we generally see here, with all three actually having points and establishing them with previously considered thoughts plainly showing their scaffolding ... I did not find it to be the apex of debate by any of the participants, but all three at their very worst are better than most. The fact of the matter is that Hitchens didn't use D'Souza as a pinata as another poster stated erroneously here... and while Hitchens was generally the better overall speaker and debater in whichever venue he attended, I have never seen him just absolutely vanquish DD in any engagement that I have watched.

And I would go further to suggest that just because you may not agree with DD's points in that debate does not make them embarrassing nor does it make them incorrect.

Continuing the debate again (42 minutes in), and while Hitchens hasn't yet used D'Souza as a pinata (he got off to a bit of a shaky start, admittedly), he definitely steamrolled the ever loving bejeezus out of Prager.

With concerns to D'Souza it was unclear where he was trying to take his Cafeteria Christian theme and how it was supposed to apply to the context of the debate. Also, he trips when he claims that antisemitism has no secular roots, when in fact it does. Well, when I mean "secular" here, I merely mean that the roots are not necessarily based in Christian dogma, per se, but rather mixed in together. The Jews, having no laws against usury, were allowed to be money lenders, and did in fact finance many a royal and noble family's expenditures, not the least of which were the very Crusades themselves. And so of course those families would find themselves in great debt, but good news though: with the death or exile of the lender, the debt was cleared. You can probably see where this is going. Jews in England were forcibly baptized, upon which their usury was illegal. And if they continued as Jews then they were exiled, with all their belongings confiscated of course. Debt cleared, huzzah!

With concern to Prager, yeah, Hitchens used him as Pinata alright. Prager asked Hitchens who he would turn to for help if he were a Jew during the Holocaust, the assumption being that the church (or just religious people in general) could be relied upon to have the morality to do the right thing in this regard. Big, big mistake. Hitchens was highly informed of the facts surrounding the Catholic church and the Holocaust, and he utterly decimated that assumption, notably pointing out that not one Nazi was excommunicated except for Goebbels, and that was only because he had married a Protestant. There was more, but point is, if I had to choose a moment to be Prager, that moment in time would not be it.

Nice to see Hitchens not drunk, btw.
 
Re: Dinesh D’Souza Is Charged With Using Straw Donors to Give to a Campaign

ACORN doesn't exist and hasn't since 2010. Get some new material.

INCORRECT... color me shocked..
 
Re: Dinesh D’Souza Is Charged With Using Straw Donors to Give to a Campaign

INCORRECT... color me shocked..

ACORN disbanding; some services to continue

Scandal-tainted ACORN is disbanding, a spokesman for the national community activist group says, although its housing division will continue, according to two news reports.

...

The Wall Street Journal says ACORN Housing, which has a separate budget and board, would remain open.

ACORN is dead. ACORN Housing is not ACORN.
 
Re: Dinesh D’Souza Is Charged With Using Straw Donors to Give to a Campaign

Continuing the debate again (42 minutes in), and while Hitchens hasn't yet used D'Souza as a pinata (he got off to a bit of a shaky start, admittedly), he definitely steamrolled the ever loving bejeezus out of Prager.

With concerns to D'Souza it was unclear where he was trying to take his Cafeteria Christian theme and how it was supposed to apply to the context of the debate. Also, he trips when he claims that antisemitism has no secular roots, when in fact it does. Well, when I mean "secular" here, I merely mean that the roots are not necessarily based in Christian dogma, per se, but rather mixed in together. The Jews, having no laws against usury, were allowed to be money lenders, and did in fact finance many a royal and noble family's expenditures, not the least of which were the very Crusades themselves. And so of course those families would find themselves in great debt, but good news though: with the death or exile of the lender, the debt was cleared. You can probably see where this is going. Jews in England were forcibly baptized, upon which their usury was illegal. And if they continued as Jews then they were exiled, with all their belongings confiscated of course. Debt cleared, huzzah!

With concern to Prager, yeah, Hitchens used him as Pinata alright. Prager asked Hitchens who he would turn to for help if he were a Jew during the Holocaust, the assumption being that the church (or just religious people in general) could be relied upon to have the morality to do the right thing in this regard. Big, big mistake. Hitchens was highly informed of the facts surrounding the Catholic church and the Holocaust, and he utterly decimated that assumption, notably pointing out that not one Nazi was excommunicated except for Goebbels, and that was only because he had married a Protestant. There was more, but point is, if I had to choose a moment to be Prager, that moment in time would not be it.

Nice to see Hitchens not drunk, btw.
I do not want to be accused of derailing the thread and so will be brief as to your well written and well meaning, but [ unfortunately ]off topic post. The Jews did have laws against usury depending upon how one defines usury. But, whether charging interest or what some might term excessive interest, it was considered a sin. And as regards Prager, being completely void of the OP, I will only say that we would have to agree to disagree. If you want to start a thread on this video debate, I will be happy to debate all these points with you in further detail.

The fact of the matter is, though, that Hitchens did not use D/Souza as a pinata as an earlier poster erroneously stated... and as regards the OP, we have charges, an indictment is only that... I will await further actual evidence and then a determination of guilt or innocence in the case. According to the WP "The indictment was the result of a routine review by the FBI of campaign filings with the FEC by various candidates after the 2012 election, according to the U.S. Attorney’s office." Conservative author and pundit Dinesh D’Souza charged in campaign finance case - The Washington Post

"Routine"? Yeah, right. The post also states that other prominent people have been prosecuted in the past such as Democratic operative, Pierce O'Donnell, as if he were just someone prominent... he has other associations that are not so squeaky clean, however.
 
I was saddened to read this story, as I met him during my tenure in Washington. His life really seems to have taken a bad trajectory recently, as his shift from political scholarship (author of Illiberal Education) to hard-nosed ideological pursuits seemed to accelerate. A sense of balance seems to have been lost in the process. His trying to shape ideas and perceptions through his writing and film may have morphed into a bid to impact electoral outcomes as a means toward the ideological vision he embraced. He had an affair that led to his departure as President of King's College. This indictment--and there should be a presumption of innocence as with all cases--is troubling in a way his affair was not. As noted at the beginning, I am saddened. I hope that no matter the outcome, he is able to get his life back on track.
 
Re: Dinesh D’Souza Is Charged With Using Straw Donors to Give to a Campaign

ACORN disbanding; some services to continue



ACORN is dead. ACORN Housing is not ACORN.



Needless to say ..you really are not in the know..and your posts to me are comedy..

ACORN Spinoff Received HUD Grant Despite Federal Funding Ban

ACORN is back in the news. That’s right, the supposedly defunct, defunded and bankrupt organization that fixed elections for liberal candidates is STILL alive and well.
Judicial Watch recently released documents from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) revealing that on February 12, 2013, HUD Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing Counseling Sarah Gerecke may have violated federal law by requesting that $201,222.07 be transferred from the account of the defunct Affordable Housing Centers of America (AHCOA), an ACORN spinoff, to HUD intermediary Mission for Peace “to specifically pay for the activities of former AHCOA affiliates .”

According to the documents, received pursuant to a FOIA request filed on May 16, 2013, the Gerecke memo requesting the transfer appears to have been in violation of the first continuing resolution of FY 13. That resolution continued funding levels under the FY 2012 appropriations bills, which provided that no HUD funds “made available under this Act may be distributed to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) or its subsidiaries.”

snip
 
Back
Top Bottom