Originally Posted by Laker14

Am I missing something? I assumed we were talking about the ACORN employees indicted for voter registration fraud. If so, they are not federal government employees, they are employees of an organization that receives federal funds.
And they aren't being accused of having a conflict of interest, they are accused voter fraud.

What am I missing here?

That we need legislation to insure that a group under indictment can get MONEY FROM ME !!!! AND YOU !!!

READ A BIT about how they operate and how they conducted the registration drive .....READ the indictments. And we need legislation to INSURE they get OUR MONEY !

Now any government employee who has an APPARENT CONFLICT OF INTEREST is subject to prosecution but ACORN RECEIVING OUR MONEY is going to be exempt because Barney Frank wants it that way !

Wonder why Frank did not introduce legislation to insure that federal employees are innocent until proven guilty !

Listen, you can defend this group forever and NEVER EVER change my mind. I have read the indictments, their history BEFORE Malkin and others jumped on the bandwagon.

If you wish to defend them fine...do so...that is your right but someday in the near future the facts will make the MSM and you can defend them then if you wish. I, for the life of me, cannot understand it but guess that is my problem. They are what they are and your words of defense cannot change them, nor Frank's blatant use of power to insure them money.

I am sure you are overjoyed that this group is President Obama's choice to work directly for the WH during the census !

Originally Posted by Bucco

That we need legislation to insure that a group under indictment can get MONEY FROM ME !!!! AND YOU !!!

READ A BIT about how they operate and how they conducted the registration drive .....READ the indictments. And we need legislation to INSURE they get OUR MONEY !

Now any government employee who has an APPARENT CONFLICT OF INTEREST is subject to prosecution but ACORN RECEIVING OUR MONEY is going to be exempt because Barney Frank wants it that way !

Wonder why Frank did not introduce legislation to insure that federal employees are innocent until proven guilty !

Listen, you can defend this group forever and NEVER EVER change my mind. I have read the indictments, their history BEFORE Malkin and others jumped on the bandwagon.

If you wish to defend them fine...do so...that is your right but someday in the near future the facts will make the MSM and you can defend them then if you wish. I, for the life of me, cannot understand it but guess that is my problem. They are what they are and your words of defense cannot change them, nor Frank's blatant use of power to insure them money.

I am sure you are overjoyed that this group is President Obama's choice to work directly for the WH during the census !

Actually, you'll have to show me where I've defended ACORN. I don't think I have. What I've defended is the idea that you can't shut down federal funding by accusing members of an organization of wrong doing, nor even if they are individually guilty of something.

The organization (ACORN or any other one) is larger than just a few employees. If the wrongdoing is widespread, or organizational, AND determined to be true by due process, then the government may decide to pull the funding.

But it's important not to be able to cut the funding of a program solely because of "charges" of wrongdoing of a few within the organization.

And that is a completely different matter than whether a federal employee should or shouldn't have to defend oneself against charges of conflict of interest.

Now if there is a defense of ACORN in there somewhere, I don't see it.

It might not be implied but to a bystander just reading this...it sure seems like your defending ACORN. Maybe not defending but maybe more of an apologist?
Keedy

Originally Posted by Keedy

It might not be implied but to a bystander just reading this...it sure seems like your defending ACORN. Maybe not defending but maybe more of an apologist?
Keedy

not defending nor apologizing.

Just taking the position that it would be a dangerous precedent to set that all one would have to do to pull funding from a program one didn't want to see funded would be to indict someone within the organization.

I go a step further and say that even if someone within the organization is convicted, that would not automatically pull funding from the entire organization. It may be appropriate to eliminate the guilty party(s) from the organization and prosecute the individual.To pull funding would require due process, and in that due process, an assessment made as to how widespread the fraud was, and whether funding should continue or not.

Originally Posted by Laker14

not defending nor apologizing.

Just taking the position that it would be a dangerous precedent to set that all one would have to do to pull funding from a program one didn't want to see funded would be to indict someone within the organization.

I go a step further and say that even if someone within the organization is convicted, that would not automatically pull funding from the entire organization. It may be appropriate to eliminate the guilty party(s) from the organization and prosecute the individual.To pull funding would require due process, and in that due process, an assessment made as to how widespread the fraud was, and whether funding should continue or not.

Due process? I think the concept of due process flew out the window with this administration. Ask the car dealers how much "due process" they received. How about ACORN intimadating voters with thugs who are shown on video, but dismissed from this administrations justice dept.?
This administration acts like the mob. If you don't agree with it ...it immediately pays you back.

Originally Posted by Keedy

Due process? I think the concept of due process flew out the window with this administration. Ask the car dealers how much "due process" they received. How about ACORN intimadating voters with thugs who are shown on video, but dismissed from this administrations justice dept.?
This administration acts like the mob. If you don't agree with it ...it immediately pays you back.

Wow. I can't argue with someone who thinks due process need not be followed. For whatever reason.

Especially when the person who says it need not be followed, in one post, claims to be an ardent supporter of the U.S. Constitution in another post.

Originally Posted by Laker14

Wow. I can't argue with someone who thinks due process need not be followed. For whatever reason.

Especially when the person who says it need not be followed, in one post, claims to be an ardent supporter of the U.S. Constitution in another post.

You sure like to use that word "argue" alot.

Originally Posted by Laker14

Actually, you'll have to show me where I've defended ACORN. I don't think I have. What I've defended is the idea that you can't shut down federal funding by accusing members of an organization of wrong doing, nor even if they are individually guilty of something.

The organization (ACORN or any other one) is larger than just a few employees. If the wrongdoing is widespread, or organizational, AND determined to be true by due process, then the government may decide to pull the funding.

But it's important not to be able to cut the funding of a program solely because of "charges" of wrongdoing of a few within the organization.

And that is a completely different matter than whether a federal employee should or shouldn't have to defend oneself against charges of conflict of interest.

Now if there is a defense of ACORN in there somewhere, I don't see it.

Laker,
I will have to take exception to your argument. Due process applies to individuals and only applies to organizations when the government is seeking to take their property without "...just compensation.

Congress routinely cuts funding of various programs (perhaps not enough) and the organization or branches of government that have been receiving those funds have to go their own way. ACORN is no more entitled to these funds than say Lockheed when a weapons program is cancelled. Lockheed then has to find other work for the people involved in the program or lay them off. There is more than enough 'smoke' to justify the suspicion of a fire. IMHO, until the situation is clear, ACORN should not receive further taxpayer funding.

Originally Posted by BBQMan

Laker,
I will have to take exception to your argument. Due process applies to individuals and only applies to organizations when the government is seeking to take their property without "...just compensation.

Congress routinely cuts funding of various programs (perhaps not enough) and the organization or branches of government that have been receiving those funds have to go their own way. ACORN is no more entitled to these funds than say Lockheed when a weapons program is cancelled. Lockheed then has to find other work for the people involved in the program or lay them off. There is more than enough 'smoke' to justify the suspicion of a fire. IMHO, until the situation is clear, ACORN should not receive further taxpayer funding.

Well, by "due process" I mean that there are steps that are taken in the process of deciding if funding will be continued. I take the legislation to mean that funding isn't to be withdrawn automatically, just because of investigation or indictment.

You say there is enough smoke to justify suspicion, and I agree. The question is whether smoke and suspicion are enough to justify pulling the funding.
Any funding is subject to being cancelled. But if Lockheed had funding and some employees were being indicted for fraud, the entire program would not necessarily lose funding at the first smell of smoke, and fire and suspicion.

I'm not a big fan of ACORN, and I expect some of these allegations to hold up. Then, depending upon how rampant the practice was, compared to it's legitimate agenda, funding should be re-examined for it's appropriateness.

Originally Posted by Keedy

You sure like to use that word "argue" alot.

Do you have a better word for describing what we do here?

Originally Posted by Keedy

Due process? I think the concept of due process flew out the window with this administration. Ask the car dealers how much "due process" they received. How about ACORN intimadating voters with thugs who are shown on video, but dismissed from this administrations justice dept.?
This administration acts like the mob. If you don't agree with it ...it immediately pays you back.

Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think the government had anything to do with the car dealerships being closed. This seemed to be a business decision..they were under performing. As for due process..that refers to something done illegally.. you know due process under the law. Has a court case been established and the case throw out of court. That is the only way one could use the due process issue in this instance.

Originally Posted by cologal

Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think the government had anything to do with the car dealerships being closed. This seemed to be a business decision..they were under performing. As for due process..that refers to something done illegally.. you know due process under the law. Has a court case been established and the case throw out of court. That is the only way one could use the due process issue in this instance.

From what I have heard, there is no rhyme or reason on the selection of whose dealership will close. I heard a guy on the radio say his dealership was closed and it was profitable. He also said he voted replublican.(that could be a coincidence)
Yea, there is going to be some precedence in the justice department.
Keedy

Originally Posted by Laker14

Do you have a better word for describing what we do here?

Discussion, exchange of knowledge, bandy, hash over, kick around, deliberate,converse, parley,debate....That's all I can think of now
Keedy

Originally Posted by Laker14

Well, by "due process" I mean that there are steps that are taken in the process of deciding if funding will be continued. I take the legislation to mean that funding isn't to be withdrawn automatically, just because of investigation or indictment.

You say there is enough smoke to justify suspicion, and I agree. The question is whether smoke and suspicion are enough to justify pulling the funding.
Any funding is subject to being cancelled. But if Lockheed had funding and some employees were being indicted for fraud, the entire program would not necessarily lose funding at the first smell of smoke, and fire and suspicion.

I'm not a big fan of ACORN, and I expect some of these allegations to hold up. Then, depending upon how rampant the practice was, compared to it's legitimate agenda, funding should be re-examined for it's appropriateness.

Laker,

I think we are talking past each other here. My point is that Congress can cancel funding for anything for any reason. Fraud can cause congress to look more critically at what is being funded, however Congress funds (or should fund) only those programs that “…establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”

I do not see the funding of ACORN, with its apparently widespread voter registration fraud does anything but undermine the idea of securing the blessing of liberty. Consequently, until the truth is uncovered and necessary steps taken to ensure that such actions cannot happen again, I feel that Congress should terminate any taxpayer funds going to that organization. Just my humble opinion.

I don't know the correct machinations of the law, but that organization has so many red flags....considerations on it's demise should begin. If it smells like a skunk...it must be a skunk

Keedy