Vandalism hit ACORN after McCain comments

I doubt the people vandalizing are Democrats, though some of you will probably try to spin it that way...

Full article here:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/54360.html

 

Rincewiend, are you attempting to claim that the vandalism is the responsibility of the Republican party?

 

Karma's a bitch aint it.....and always nice when people have to use "Bob's blog" as their news source. It's pretty obvious the politcal bent of that blog too.

Well, you know...except for those fictional characters they registered...or those who simply don't exist in any form...other than that little proof. I'm opposed to vandalism, but considering ACORN is most likely going to get away scott-free...I won't shed too many tears.

 

I meant supporters obviously...

 

You mean, you're opposed to terrorism, unless it's for a just cause?

Just wanted to know, because that's exactly my viewpoint as well.

a.

 

I'm not remotely surprised you've missed the point on pretty much.....everything.

 

Please, tell me, exactly what point were you trying to make?

a.

 

I don't know why I'm humoring you...

The source of the story is an obvious piece of biased trash. ACORN is guilty of voter/registration fraud and the source is basically saying there isn't any evidence even though there is mountains of it. This makes anything else they say suspect as they are basically ignoring facts at best...and making up outright lies at worst.

IF (and that is a big if) this vandalism occurred, vandalism is not terrorism, even a death threat is not terrorism as most people define it. If these things happened they should also be investigated, however if they happened I also will not be too upset as a I said, they were perpetrated against known criminals.

I will change one thing I said though, I don't think the point of what was said went over your head. I think in true moonbat fashion you took a statement and twisted it into a bizarre strawman and then used that as a point to argue against.
4)

 

Even when I read the original post, I see no mention of vandalism. I see a death threat, that has not been carried out. I have personally received death threats on the internet at certain message boards. I take them as seriously as I take anything spouted by idiots - not at all.

The ACORN staffer should just report this to the police, arm themselves (ha! like they'll have the balls to take RESPONSIBILITY for their own safety) and be cautious. These people should also guard their emotions, lest nasty emails vandalize their emotions.

The facts are that ACORN has done some very, very bad things. I wouldn't put it past them to use outright lies in an attempt to help further their agenda. Lies and deception seem to be the modus operandi of ACORN and Barack Hussein Obama.

 

No, the spin is being done by you in suggesting that the McCain campaign is somehow responsible for the actions of these loons.

 

I honestly think what I said went over your head.

I was asking you, quite honestly, if you support illegal activities, that is, vigilante activities, also possibly defined as "terrorism" (it's a degree-level distinction), if they were for a just cause, as you interpret said "just cause".

I was asking you this because I agree with this attitude, with some modifications, and I wasn't being sarcastic.

Also ACORN isn't guilty of voter registration fraud. (Why did you put a "/" in that sentence?) ACORN is legally bound to submit all registration forms they receive.

a.

 

-They are legally bound to check every registration form and make sure that non existent people like Mickey Mouse aren't signing.
-They are legally bound to make sure that names aren't showing up multiple times.
-This being the 4th election cycle and the fact that it's happening in 11 states, ACORN has used up their excuses.

 

There's facts in that there post! Expect to be ignored again.

 

On a related note:

 

Want to know a good way to stop this stuff?

If the left would shun ACORN and groups like them rather than make up lame ass excuses defending them them.

 

Coming from an expert like you I think armalyte should listen to you. You have turned ignoring facts that to do not support your narrow, extreme left, socialist views to a fine art form Liet.

 

Liet isn't a socialist.

a.

 

You'll have to excuse KIRK. He's a particularly dim-witted anarchist, so from his point of view capitalists, socialists, and communists all seem like the same thing.

 

What leads you to believe that Liet isn't socialist? Care to provide to some links to comments, statements, and ideological positions that he has demonstrated here to lead you to the opinion that I'm wrong armalyte? Or is it just your opinion?

 

This from a man who claims to be an attorney yet still lives in his mommies basement because he can't afford to live on his own. This from a man who can come up with absolutely to support his claims.

armalyte, you'll have to excuse Liet. All he ever does is pretends to be an expert in the Constitution, yet will never ever support the limitations placed on the federal government and instead support any candidate that looks to usurp the Constitution.

I'm sure that if I looked I could a post or two by Liet in which he advocates the redistribution of wealth. I'm also willing to be the can't find any posts where his claims about me are accurate.

Not that I expect you to demand that type of accuracy arm. You seem to be satisfied blindly supporting anyone who is an extreme leftist. It is an unfortunate trait with foreigners who pop into threads that deal with US politics.

 

The KKK should be burning all of those building down.

They just don't have the balls like they use too.

 

Communist, socialists....know what? I don't give a fuck about these labels. All I know is I don't want these people taking what I work for and giving it out under the guise of "social programs" Now if a party were to institute MASSIVE reforms to these programs to get rid of abuse, I may be more open to the programs.

Of course we all know that either party attempting reform would be stamped "racist" for the next 100 years.

 

You're slugging blind at this point, Kirk. I think I'll leave to Liet himself to explain to you, shortly and to the point, why he is not a socialist, instead of second-guessing his opinions.

Supporting "redistribution of wealth" isn't the same as being a "socialist". All governments in all societies throughout the entire history of mankind have engaged in the "redistribution of wealth".

a.

 

Kirk mentioned that...
I clarified in a later post i meant Republican supporters...
And right now i would say the McCain campaign is partially responsilble with their insinuations that feeds on the hate of their supporters for anyone none-white...
You know, the people yelling "off with his head", "terrorist" etc at the McCain/Palin rallies...
It is probable that some-one with a similair mindset has vandalized the office and/or made the death threats after what McCain has said in the 3rd debate about ACORN...
That part of McCain's base is, as Jon Steward put it, his Frankenstein monster and it's getting more out of control...

 

Any pictures of your island that don't include some stolen photoshopped image of Gilligans Island JohnM?

In other words you have nothing. Good to know. What makes you think I have any respect for either Liet, or his arrogant, elitist attitudes? Seriously, why should anyone believe, or listen to someone who holds such contempt for virtually everyone?

 

Of course I do have "something". Shouldn't the person in question, especially if that person is present on the board, be allowed to make his case first-hand?

Again, you're slugging blind. I could make a case for why Liet isn't "Socialist", but I'd prefer him doing so himself.

a.

 

No, I'm not slugging blind. I know exactly what I am talking about. I also know Liets history apparently far better than you. You have nothing given your lack of being able to provide anything to demonstrate why you think Liet is anything but a socialist, or for that matter an extreme leftist with an entitlement mentality. Keep trying armalyte, it is always fun to watch you try and defend these folks.

 

I make a point of never engaging with KIRK. I'll tell you, however, that the difference between capitalism and anarchy is reasonable regulation. People who are reflexively opposed to regulation are economic anarchists. They see any governmental intervention in the economy at all as equivalently wrong and as having equivalent effect. Since, to KIRK and like-"minded" dim-witted anarchists, any government intervention in the economy at all is wrong and all interventions equally so, capitalists, socialists, and communists are all the same thing to him.

 

Has anyone else noticed how our boards leading Democrats routinely and regularly classify people who disagree with them as being stupid, dimwitted, and etc.? Or it is more an East Coast thing. Liet loves to throw that term around as if he holds the secrets to the universe. Liet likes to do it, as does gul.

I can understand why their siamese butt buddy Martok does, but gul and Liet really need to get a clue. To hold different political ideologies does not equate with stupidity.

In my opinion what might come close to stupidity is supporting someone for political office when you can't answer basic questions about their positions, policies, and what they will likely do when they take office.

 

Alright, let me be very, very clear.

I don't believe in putting words in peoples' mouth. If you go through my postings, you'll notice I have never referred to you as a "fascist", an "extreme right-winger" or even a "Republican". I prefer talking about the issues. As for you, your common method of discourse is throwing around value-loaded words. I now ask you to define these words, as you are using them.

Define:

"Extreme leftist"

"Socialist"

"Elitist"

Please. Then we will know what we are talking about.

a.