• 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!

New Acorn Video Scandal Emerges- Employee Asks For Sex

The townhall screamers have been shut down and this is the rights next distraction topic..so they don't have to talk about real health care issues.

Yeah, because a million people showing up at a national protest in DC is your idea of being shut down?
 
rg, i watched that entire piece on cspan's washington journal friday morning

in an entire HALF HOUR of "open" phone lines, acorn's ceo took ONE critical call

unbelievable

the host, peter (slen), allowed her, encouraged her, even, to filibuster

the screeners apparently nixed out acorn detractors

i have gotten thru to cspan's open phone lines many, many times, for more than 10 years

i was months ahead of the nation on rev wright, for example

my point---i know intimately how washington journal operates

this segment was beyond bogus

doesn't matter, cspan (which is experiencing diminished audience like cnn and the nyt) can't change a thing

acorn's a rotten seed which will never again sprout life

and the president's parent organization is dreadfully damaging his admin

it is what it is

ms bertha's gonna be on fns this weekend

she'll be up against CA congressman issa, a tiger

cliff

Was that the interview where she said that the people who exposed ACORN were racists because they exposed ACORN?
 
Yes, a new fifth video has emerged, and this time, it's a male employee. If you haven't been keeping track, a young 20 year old woman and her friend have taken action against Acorn, having posed as a prostitute and pimp to get Acorn employees to reveal tax fraud, but they found more than fraud. More than 5 employees have agreed to help solicit child-sex brothels, and now a male employee has asked the 20 year old for sex, asking where she lives and how much she charges. More shockingly, the man even said that he "knew people" who could smuggle kids into the country, and that he would be glad to run the couple's "prostitution" ring himself. I have informative links below. Two different sources, same story. Now that's resourcefulness! Enjoy!

BREAKING: More ACORN Videos To Be Revealed - HUMAN EVENTS

ACORN Vows to 'Review' Operations as New Undercover Footage Released - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com

I wonder if ACORN has a division that gives advice on how to obtain birth certificates? Just kidding, come on now people.

Actually, I heard that Dateline is thinking about having a "How To Catch A Predator: ACORN Edition".
 
Link to Philly?

As far as San Bernardino, they got played as a fool?

Looks more like they got a sales pitch for a product they weren't looking for.... how to get away with murder. They still got good advice on how to scam the IRS on taxes for a child prostitution ring, and how to set it up. :doh

Yes in san bernardino. San bernardino was where the woman said she killed her husband. You seem to be mixing up the videos. I already posted the article in this thread regarding philly.
 
There was ample evidence of wrong-doing. Just because the woman lied about killing her ex-husband doesn't change the fact that she still offered to facilitate a child prostitution ring. You're just living in intellectual denial, and frankly it's disgusting.

Lied? She was pulling their leg. Anyone watching the video wouldn't take that woman seriously. Its pretty obvious what she was doing. Offered to facilitate? lol I'm not in denial as I said if you go about with a specific purpose eventually after visiting hundreds of offices you're going to find a few idiots.
 
Yeah, because a million people showing up at a national protest in DC is your idea of being shut down?

Try dividing that number by about 15 and you'll have the real number
 
Lied? She was pulling their leg. Anyone watching the video wouldn't take that woman seriously. Its pretty obvious what she was doing. Offered to facilitate? lol I'm not in denial as I said if you go about with a specific purpose eventually after visiting hundreds of offices you're going to find a few idiots.

They visited "hundreds of offices"? They spend $3k on the entire thing. Even ACORN (which initially claimed dozens) has now revised their statement to say they were turned away from "several" offices.
 
They visited "hundreds of offices"? They spend $3k on the entire thing. Even ACORN (which initially claimed dozens) has now revised their statement to say they were turned away from "several" offices.

Acorn has hundreds of offices. Again out of the hundreds you're likely to find a few idiots especially if its your purpose to do that
 
Acorn has hundreds of offices. Again out of the hundreds you're likely to find a few idiots especially if its your purpose to do that

What does their overall number of offices have to do with anything? The filmmakers only visited "several," and out of that several, 5 were more than willing to help out with shady ****. Those aren't good numbers.

How many H&R Blocks do you think you'd have to visit before you found even one that would suggest you use your underage Salvadoran sex slaves as a dependent? I'm going to bet it's more than "several."
 
I'm just wondering. How many ACORN offices did these "journalists" have to visit before they got the scandalous videos they were clearly looking for? Was it 5/5 or more like 5/200?
 
I'm just wondering. How many ACORN offices did these "journalists" have to visit before they got the scandalous videos they were clearly looking for? Was it 5/5 or more like 5/200?

Read the 4 posts right before yours.

Acorn initially claimed that the two had been turned away by "dozens" of offices, but they have since revised that to "several." It looks like they had a pretty good success rate.
 
Acorn has hundreds of offices. Again out of the hundreds you're likely to find a few idiots especially if its your purpose to do that
"idiots"? Is that the new term for it?
 
Try dividing that number by about 15 and you'll have the real number

All depends on who you ask. The mainstream media can't give a reliable number, just like with ACORN, they weren't there to cover it.
 
Sure, they have an Agenda.

I dare say the vast majority of investigative journalists in this country have an agenda. Only difference from them compared to some investigative journalists is they're completely open and honest about the lean of their agenda.

Do you immedietely doubt that the people on To Catch A Predator aren't ACTUALLY pedophiles because its the agenda of Chris Hanson is to catch pedophiles?

Most issues of investigative journalism goes into a situation expecting or hoping for a certain revelation or conclussion or direction to happen...that's part of the POINt of investigative journalism.

Having an Agenda doesn't mean their information is wrong. Should people look into it? Yes. Look into the factual information and to see if anything was forged...not to dig into their lives and insult them or anything like what is going on by some people currently.

I think as well having similar situations occur in multiple venues all across the country adds some credibility to the claims and raises some serious questions where as if this was simply the case at one lone place in the country and no where else it'd be far easier to dismiss.

Having an Agenda is not a disqualification or even necessarily and immediete reason to believe anything was done dishonestly. It just means you should view it with some skeptisism and look at the facts presented along with what other information you can find and come to your own conclussion. The thing is, people should do this with ALL forms of investigative journalism because almost ALL of them have SOME form of an Agenda but not all of them have their agenda pretty blatantly presented.



And yet your injection of essentially the reverse race card actually CAUSED the race card discussion to begin and for actual fact based debate to turn into one about racism. You weren't doing fact based debate because you were arguing about something that didn't even happen yet based on nothing more than an assumption.

Then we're in agreement that the reporters had an agenda. This raises questions for me as to whether their agenda was to find at least one bad apple (or five), and report only on those, without bothering to tell us how many offices they had to visit. If it was six, then one could say that there's a different pattern, but a statistician would tell you that the sample size is too small to draw any conclusions - yet. If the number was 50, with five "hits," then one could argue that the organization has some bad apples, but whether that reflects the organization's policies is debatable.

I'd like to know the exact number of offices the reporters visited and tried their hooker-pimp routine, as well as the unedited videos of all their visits.

I suspect that because the reporters had an agenda - to discredit a certain liberal activist group - that they are not telling us the entire story.
 
People this is about as transparent as it gets...Who gives a crap about ACORN? Is ACORN important to our nations future in any way, shape or form what so ever? Nope...Zero....Ziltch...that is why the Right, in their desperation, continues to use them as a distraction.

Does Rush, Hannity or Beck in their looney rants represent your entire political beleifs and the entire spectrum or your political party?

Yet another lame distraction tatic is all it is...all it has ever been.

Speaking of transparent, what could be MORE transparent than a President that fear mongers people in the healthcare debate, denigrates his opponents, lies about the costs and savings and then makes the farcical claims that it is Republican efforts that are preventing him from passing his Socialist agenda?

The only thing more amazing than this would be the transparency that has to exist between one's ears to think that there is anything substantive about this Administration.

P.S. It isn't Rush, Hannity or Beck who are stopping the legislation from passing, it is Democrats who look at this bill and listen to their constituents and say they cannot support a bill that is basically one huge lie.

But your hyperbolic bile and demagoguery has been noted; carry on!

:rofl
 
Then we're in agreement that the reporters had an agenda. This raises questions for me as to whether their agenda was to find at least one bad apple (or five), and report only on those, without bothering to tell us how many offices they had to visit. If it was six, then one could say that there's a different pattern, but a statistician would tell you that the sample size is too small to draw any conclusions - yet. If the number was 50, with five "hits," then one could argue that the organization has some bad apples, but whether that reflects the organization's policies is debatable.

I'd like to know the exact number of offices the reporters visited and tried their hooker-pimp routine, as well as the unedited videos of all their visits.

I suspect that because the reporters had an agenda - to discredit a certain liberal activist group - that they are not telling us the entire story.

Night Line doesn't have an agenda? CBS 60 minutes doesn't have an agenda? Katy Couric had no agenda when she interviewed Palin?

Please, people attempting coherent debate on a political forum can't possibly be so naive as to think that no one has an agenda.

BUT, what is more important here is why the “agenda” is the issue when the recorded actions of these employees so obviously crossed the line and encouraged illegal behavior?

Why is it that we feel compelled to attack the messenger rather than those who attempted to collude with individuals who obviously were conspiring to break laws and engage in truly despicable behavior?

I am curious how the fact that the people acting out and video taping this are the subject rather than the corrupt behavior of those they set up?

This has NOTHING to do with partisanship; it has everything to do with the personnel who work within an organization that derives multi-millions of dollars from the taxpayers of this country for a partisan political purpose.

:doh
 
Night Line doesn't have an agenda? CBS 60 minutes doesn't have an agenda? Katy Couric had no agenda when she interviewed Palin?

Please, people attempting coherent debate on a political forum can't possibly be so naive as to think that no one has an agenda.

BUT, what is more important here is why the “agenda” is the issue when the recorded actions of these employees so obviously crossed the line and encouraged illegal behavior?

Why is it that we feel compelled to attack the messenger rather than those who attempted to collude with individuals who obviously were conspiring to break laws and engage in truly despicable behavior?

I am curious how the fact that the people acting out and video taping this are the subject rather than the corrupt behavior of those they set up?

This has NOTHING to do with partisanship; it has everything to do with the personnel who work within an organization that derives multi-millions of dollars from the taxpayers of this country for a partisan political purpose.

:doh

It looks like you missed my point. Nowhere did I say, or imply, that others don't have their own agendas. I was pointing out that the agenda of these individuals raises legitimate questions about their reporting and whether they have carefully given the public ONLY those details that fits in with that agenda.

It's the same kind of questions that are made about any news organizations, but apparently when it's a right winger trying to discredit a lefty organization, those questions are off limits.
 
It looks like you missed my point. Nowhere did I say, or imply, that others don't have their own agendas. I was pointing out that the agenda of these individuals raises legitimate questions about their reporting and whether they have carefully given the public ONLY those details that fits in with that agenda.

It's the same kind of questions that are made about any news organizations, but apparently when it's a right winger trying to discredit a lefty organization, those questions are off limits.

What difference does an agenda make? They have VISUAL EVIDENCE; an agenda can't alter the nature of that evidence, so unless you have some specific criticisms about their videos your supposition amounts to nothing more than a lame attempt to deflect the issue.
 
Back
Top Bottom