September 12, 2009
Why conservatives must denounce the ACORN sting.

An undercover sting video on ACORN in Baltimore is all over the news. Watch it here on youtube before they take it down, as they did with a similar sting of Planned Parenthood. Watch it for comedic value alone, as stingers O'Keefe and Giles play their pimp and ho roles to the max, complete with fur coat & cane for him, and tiny, tight miniskirt for her.

But no matter how entertaining, it has to be denounced. In our era of police-statism, stings have proliferated. Stings are now used for any and everything. King County runs thousands annually on grocery clerks. If a clerk can be tricked into selling tobacco or booze to a 'decoy,', it means a fine, and often the loss of a job. Stings have been conducted on African hair braiders, and on farmers selling milk. The Ruby Ridge debacle in the 1990's started with a BATF sting.. Weaver, who was not involved in nor suspected of gun violations prior to the sting, was eventually acquitted on the basis of entrapment, but not before his wife and son were killed.

The sting of ACORN was not a law enforcement operation, but stings by journalists are no less insidious. Local gun-rights advocates cried foul when KIRO TV reporter Chris Halsne ran an idiotic undercover sting at a gun show around the time of the DC 'sniper' case. Then there was the sting of the late Sen. Jim West by the Spokesman-Review. They hired a former law enforcement officer to entrap him in an online sting. The tabloid 'Globe' hired a very buxom former flight attendant to lure sports announcer Frank Gifford into adultery in a camera-equipped hotel room. The sting was a success, as Gifford gave in to temptation. I would have too!

The tactic is sleazy, underhanded, and ripe for abuse whether done by police or journalists, whether to advance a left or right-wing agenda. The scenario is controlled from start to finish by the stingers, and they can adjust the level of deception to get the result they want. They may repeatedly fail, but they just move on to the next mark. The misses go unmentioned, and the hits are trumpeted. And they can edit out entrapping moves that might give pause to a disinterested observer. It's bad enough with LE, where oversight is often inadequate.. With a self-styled 'journalist' it is guaranteed that there is zero oversight.

Do we really want a world full of spies, stings, and gotchas? I can see why the deceivers of the left want it, but we on the right must reject it.

Posted by 6p01053690976c970c at September 12, 2009 09:41 PM | Email This
Comments
1. I see it differently. ACORN is a criminal enterprise, as one politician called them. OBAMA got them the Census gig,knowing what kind of a sleazeball group they are. It was disgusting that they were given access to this important task, knowing how rooted in vote fraud they already were. The govt. was failing its citizens for looking the other way. Now, they can no longer look the other way. Somebody got them nailed when the govt. refused to see what they knew was already there.
These two undercover reporters are heroes.

Posted by: Michele on September 12, 2009 09:48 PM
2. Why conservatives must denounce the ACORN sting? Is this a Joke? What a bunch of Liberal Hogwash. Yeah...Right! Poor Criminal ACORN was caught by a Nasty Sting and we should denounce such exposure and protect that Liberal Criminal CessPool operation which is guilty of stealing our Votes and our Tax Dollars. An organization who's members should be arrested and the leaders charged with Treason and given a Public Execution. No, whoever posted this Phony CRAP should be immediately BOOTED from Sound Politics Public Blog.

Posted by: Daniel on September 13, 2009 12:04 AM
3. why demand to boot me, Daniel. Would it not be better to refute me?

Posted by: 6p01053690976c970c on September 13, 2009 02:04 AM
4. Here is link to the 'milk sting' that I referenced, for those interested.

Posted by: 6p01053690976c970c on September 13, 2009 03:08 AM
5. @3...I have refuted you. Read my comment. What is it about my comment that you didn't realize it was a Refute? Yes, stings can be abused just like anything else. But when, it comes to fighting serious crime such as Crime Laden ACORN, there can be never enough stings until ACORN is completely brought down and eradicated. For you to defend ACORN from being exposed is unconscionable.

Posted by: Daniel on September 13, 2009 07:33 AM
6. You did not refute; you disagreed and demanded that I be shut up--two very different things. In fact you barely addressed anything I said, other than to label it 'phony crap.'

Stings are not 'like anything else.' They are a deception from start to finish and thus inherently subject to abuse. Someone has to decide how to control the level of deception.

For example, can we persuade a girl that her mother is dying, needs money for surgery, then offer to pay it if she will commit an act of prostitution?

Even with the ACORN video, if the workers were clever, they could have claimed after the fact that they were playing along with the guy so that they could set him up and turn him over to police. There must be careful oversight and controls if a sting is to be used at all.

Posted by: 6p01053690976c970c on September 13, 2009 02:23 PM
7. I did refute you. To simply disagree, one would only say "I disagree with you". However I told you ACORN was a Liberal Criminal CessPool operation who's members should be arrested and the leaders charged with Treason and given a Public Execution. That additional commentary/argument is giving you reason why I disagree with you and therefore because, I am giving you reason/argument in my reply to your position, I'm refuting your position. Is all this too much for you? Probably is.

Your example of what a Sting is, is Laughable. A Sting, in no way, puts pressure on anybody to commit an illegal act. Let alone, the extreme pressure your example entails. A Sting allows for the opportunity to show a willingness to commit an illegal act and in some cases to follow through in the commission of an illegal act/conduct. A temptation may be in the offering such as, offering a person a bribe but, no pressure of circumstance other than, the dishonest avarice of the individual or group that is involved.

Your position that Stings can be misused and therefore, all Stings should be disallowed is also, Laughable. Just, about everything can be misused and you would certainly not outlaw whatever was misused simply because, it was misused. How Silly! A knife can be misused. Do you outlaw all knifes? Of course not!

Yes, you have offered Phony Crap in order to present and support your position. No surprise there. After all...You're a Liberal!

Posted by: Daniel on September 13, 2009 10:04 PM
8. Actually it is the liberals of late who have supported supression of speech through polices like the fairness doctrine, or as with the banning of 'Hillary, The Movie,' via the BCRA. And you, Daniel, favor supression of speech as evidenced by your comment that I should be booted from this blog.

And it it is liberals who have supported the proliferation of sting operations. Liberals cheered when the BATF took advantage of Randy Weaver's woes to entrap him. Liberals Gary Locke and Ron Sims ramped up the cigarette stings against grocery and convenience clerks. Liberals love stings; it gives them a way to synthetically create legal violations and rake in fine revenue.

Daniel, if there is a liberal here, IT IS YOU!

Posted by: 6p01053690976c970c on September 14, 2009 01:10 AM
9. Sound Politics Public Blog is a Blog site that heretofore, represented a higher level of quality posting of subjects and positions than, the common Liberal Lie Sites. Your blatantly wrong headed posting of a typical Liberal position of wanting to take the tools away from Society that protects Society from Lawbreakers simply because, those tools can be abused is the level of Insanity that only a Liberal would support. That's why if you want to spew CRAP...Go spew it at a Liberal Lie Site! Let's face it, the Law itself can be abused. Should we get rid of the Rule of Law because, it can, at times, be Abused? Of Course NOT! I have given you a prior example of throwing out the Baby with the Bathwater and you still don't get it.

Yes, Liberals can be, have been and ARE very capable of being Abusive in their Conduct. This certainly doesn't mean that the tool that they are using should be removed completely. The Tool should be restricted for proper and prudent use just, like anything else. So, start thinking and quit emotionally overreacting on a subject which is Typical Liberal conduct where they think with their emotions rather than, their BRAINS!

There are people who may think of themselves as Conservative yet, still have a lot of Liberal blood in their veins. Maybe, you're one of them.

Posted by: Daniel on September 14, 2009 07:21 AM
10. Daniel your continual labeling me as a liberal is a) childish; b) non-productive in terms of advancing your argument; c) probably a case of projection. You even argue like a liberal, substituting insult and invective for facts and logic.

It is common sense to use extra care when a practice is all to easily abused. For example the use of anonymous accusatons has proven to be very dangerous, which is why the sixth amendment gives us the right to confront. Reporters still use anonymous sources, but whether they should is hotly debated. This can mean that miscreants get away scot-free because witnesses fear coming forward, nonetheless it is a tool so easily abused that we handle it with extreme care.

Note that nowhere did I say, as you imply, that the tool should be 'removed completely.'

Posted by: 6p01053690976c970c on September 15, 2009 12:54 AM
11. Nowhere, did you say the tool of the Sting should be removed completely? What do you think this commentary has been all about? You want the Sting operation on Criminal Liberal ACORN removed COMPLETELY! What a Liberal...IDIOT!

Anybody who wants a legitimate Sting operation REMOVED on further revealing what a known Criminal organization ACORN is, is a hands down LIBERAL! What you are is a Liberal plant, a Pretender, a Faux Liberal...PERIOD! You're a Lying Liberal pretending to be a Conservative in order to covertly push a Liberal agenda. You are a Wolf in Sheep's clothing. Nuff...Said.

Posted by: Daniel on September 15, 2009 09:07 AM
12. Okay, Incomprehensible String of Digits In Lieu of a Screen Name, if you want a counterargument, here goes (Daniel, calm down).

"If a clerk can be tricked into selling tobacco or booze to a 'decoy,', it means a fine, and often the loss of a job."

False. Being tricked equals entrapment, against which there are strict laws. Entrapment occurs when the stinger makes false representations about the legality of the others potential actions. For example, if the stinger provides false ID that a reasonable person cannot distinguish from legitimate ID, or if the stinger poses as a store manager and informs a clerk that the law has been changed or is different for this particular store, that is entrapment. By conflating a sting with entrapment, you bankrupt your argument.

"The Ruby Ridge debacle in the 1990's started with a BATF sting.. Weaver, who was not involved in nor suspected of gun violations prior to the sting, was eventually acquitted on the basis of entrapment, but not before his wife and son were killed."

Comparing the botched and deadly raid on Ruby Ridge with an ingenious sting by two young journalists to catch willing coconspirators in a scheme to set up child prostitution is beneath anyone hoping to craft a convincing argument, and making the absurd claim that the sting forced the raid (when in reality the evidence that emerged from the sting convinced everyone except Reno that the situation could be resolved by peaceful means) demonstrates the paucity of reason you have at your command.

"Local gun-rights advocates cried foul when KIRO TV reporter Chris Halsne ran an idiotic undercover sting at a gun show around the time of the DC 'sniper' case."

Did the sting reveal criminal behavior of a non-entrapped nature? If not, the sting deserved scorn. It does not, however, follow that stings which bear fruit, like the ACORN sting, are thus invalidated. It simply means that Halsne did not find what he thought he would find, and more fool he.

"Then there was the sting of the late Sen. Jim West by the Spokesman-Review. They hired a former law enforcement officer to entrap him in an online sting. The tabloid 'Globe' hired a very buxom former flight attendant to lure sports announcer Frank Gifford into adultery in a camera-equipped hotel room. The sting was a success, as Gifford gave in to temptation. I would have too!"

Senator West repeatedly lied to his constituents. Frank Gifford was a willing adulterer. If you wish to empathize or, in Gifford's case, seemingly emulate, these guys, have at it. The rest of us will have to somehow get through life by telling the truth and staying faithful to our wives.

"The tactic is sleazy, underhanded, and ripe for abuse whether done by police or journalists, whether to advance a left or right-wing agenda. The scenario is controlled from start to finish by the stingers, and they can adjust the level of deception to get the result they want. They may repeatedly fail, but they just move on to the next mark. The misses go unmentioned, and the hits are trumpeted. And they can edit out entrapping moves that might give pause to a disinterested observer. It's bad enough with LE, where oversight is often inadequate.. With a self-styled 'journalist' it is guaranteed that there is zero oversight."

Once again, you attempt to conflate investigation with entrapment. It does not bolster your equivalency argument to list the abuses of yellow journalists and corrupt police forces, because the two sides remain two sides: legitimate stings and entrapments.

You can spend all day bloviating about how this guy trapped that guy or this operations lied to this group to get them to break that law. Then, once you are done, and are wiping the outraged spittle from your lips and surrounding area, we will simply state, "Yes, those were terrible abuses of power, and I hope those responsible for them are punished. But see here, in the ACORN sting, where the office folks volunteer to help the stingers hide the fact that they will be pimping 13-year olds? What a great sting; hope the ACORN folks are severely punished."

Two completely different things.

"Do we really want a world full of spies, stings, and gotchas? I can see why the deceivers of the left want it, but we on the right must reject it."

In my world, I want as many spies as needed to root out scum like the ACORN flesh peddlars. I want as many stings as necessary to put them out of business, along with the other terrorists, bullies, extorters, thieves, and fraudsters who operate in the darkness. I want strict rules to govern these spies and stingers, so that if they stray into the same area as the criminals they target, they get punished as well.

Your simplistic, moralistic, black and white position would strip us of one of the few tools we have to defend ourselves against these parasites. It is an ill-reasoned, ill-placed argument deserving of scorn.

Posted by: Barnstable on September 15, 2009 10:21 AM
13. Good for you...Barnstable.

Posted by: Daniel on September 15, 2009 11:25 AM
14. OK, 'barnstable'--the digits were assigned by the software, but you can call me 'travis t,' instead if you prefer.

"False. Being tricked equals entrapment, against which there are strict laws. Entrapment occurs when the stinger makes false representations about the legality of the others potential actions. For example, if the stinger provides false ID that a reasonable person cannot distinguish from legitimate ID, or if the stinger poses as a store manager and informs a clerk that the law has been changed or is different for this particular store, that is entrapment. By conflating a sting with entrapment, you bankrupt your argument."

Entrapment is in theory against the law, but in practice not so much. They would not use the fake ID ploy that you present, but can use a 17-yr-old who is 6'5" with a full beard to try to buy cigs. A friend was busted years ago by these folks. He was a Boeing worker who was laid off, and instead of collecting UI and watching TV, he took a job at his neighborhood convenience store. He was an honest guy, straight as an arrow. They sent in a tall young woman who was holding a baby to buy cigs--she was a decoy. Is a cashier making $10/hr. going to pay a couple thousand to retain an atty? Of course not--they will be offered a plea deal wherein several hundred bucks exchanges hands, and the citation is expunged from their record after a year or so.

"Comparing the botched and deadly raid on Ruby Ridge with an ingenious sting by two young journalists to catch willing coconspirators in a scheme to set up child prostitution is beneath anyone hoping to craft a convincing argument, and making the absurd claim that the sting forced the raid (when in reality the evidence that emerged from the sting convinced everyone except Reno that the situation could be resolved by peaceful means) demonstrates the paucity of reason you have at your command."

You misrepresent what I said. I did not compare the raid to the Acorn sting. I merely noted that Weaver's case arose from a sting. He was targeted & persuaded to supply an illegal shotgun (barrel 1/4th inch shorter than legal, IIRC) to the ATF stinger. The case occurred during the GHW Bush admin btw, so this one was not Janet Reno's fault.
"I want strict rules to govern these spies and stingers, so that if they stray into the same area as the criminals they target, they get punished as well."

Finally we agree. But what 'strict rules' governed the Acorn stingers OKeefe and Giles? Zip, zero, nada. Which of course is why there was no arrest for child prostitution, nor will there be. If this case was as you portray, "n ingenious sting by two young journalists to catch willing coconspirators in a scheme to set up child prostitution" then you should be plenty mad. These purported purveyors of child prostitution get away with nothing more than lost jobs and some bad pub. There will be no charges whatsoever, because these two young journalists went off half-cocked on their own instead of getting LE involved.

Posted by: travis t on September 15, 2009 11:31 AM
15. Hey travis t...That Sting cost ACORN plenty. It was an "In Your Face Wake UP Call". A tipping point exposure that caused the Census Bureau to drop ACORN and the Senate to block funding. Hooray!

Posted by: Daniel on September 15, 2009 11:42 AM
16. I don't disagree, Daniel. Just as the sting on Gifford cost him plenty; the sting on West cost him plenty, etc. I don't mean to minimize the cost of bad pub. But in none of those case did any criminal charges or convictions result. Certainly there will be no child prostitutiion charges in the ACORN case.

Posted by: travis t on September 15, 2009 12:08 PM
17. "Nowhere, did you say the tool of the Sting should be removed completely? What do you think this commentary has been all about? You want the Sting operation on Criminal Liberal ACORN removed COMPLETELY! What a Liberal...IDIOT! "--posted by Daniel.

Give me a quote where I said I wanted the sting 'removed completely.' I never said that. What I said was that I wanted the sting 'denounced.' And again, in typical lib fashion, you substitute invective for an argument.

Posted by: travis t on September 15, 2009 12:39 PM
18. Travis,

"Entrapment is in theory against the law, but in practice not so much. They would not use the fake ID ploy that you present, but can use a 17-yr-old who is 6'5" with a full beard to try to buy cigs. A friend was busted years ago by these folks. He was a Boeing worker who was laid off, and instead of collecting UI and watching TV, he took a job at his neighborhood convenience store. He was an honest guy, straight as an arrow. They sent in a tall young woman who was holding a baby to buy cigs--she was a decoy. Is a cashier making $10/hr. going to pay a couple thousand to retain an atty? Of course not--they will be offered a plea deal wherein several hundred bucks exchanges hands, and the citation is expunged from their record after a year or so."

It's truly a shame that your friend got caught selling cigarettes to an underage person. Particularly because drug prohibition is a stupid and victimless crime. However, the rules against (and penalties for) doing so cannot be more clearly posted, seemingly everywhere, at every store. How hard is it to say, "I have to see your ID, ma'am. No exceptions. I could get fired if I don't ask."?

I don't know how often or to what extent mitigating circumstances, such as manager pressure or neglect, may reduce a clerk's culpability. But even if it doesn't, your responsibility is to follow the rules, and in this case they really aren't that complicated.

"You misrepresent what I said. I did not compare the raid to the Acorn sting. I merely noted that Weaver's case arose from a sting. He was targeted & persuaded to supply an illegal shotgun (barrel 1/4th inch shorter than legal, IIRC) to the ATF stinger. The case occurred during the GHW Bush admin btw, so this one was not Janet Reno's fault."

You are right about Reno, of course. My apologies for the error.

Regarding the sting, however, it appears that, though the fed admitted no wrongdoing, their contention that Weaver had sold shortened shotguns to the investigators was false, as the charge was dropped. Thus the sting was most probably an improper entrapment, followed by a tragic series of misunderstandings and escalations that led to bloodshed.

I maintain that this is a fundamentally different animal than the ACORN investigation, and that the two cannot be meaningfully compared. And I maintain that your mention of it does have the effect of begging a comparison, else why include it? You are essentially using the enormity of that event to censure the ACORN event through guilt by association, i.e. "Stings are everywhere, and they go wrong and kill people like at Ruby Ridge." You cannot expect to throw something inflammatory like that into an argument without getting some entirely justified blowback.


"Finally we agree. But what 'strict rules' governed the Acorn stingers OKeefe and Giles? Zip, zero, nada. Which of course is why there was no arrest for child prostitution, nor will there be. If this case was as you portray, "n ingenious sting by two young journalists to catch willing coconspirators in a scheme to set up child prostitution" then you should be plenty mad. These purported purveyors of child prostitution get away with nothing more than lost jobs and some bad pub. There will be no charges whatsoever, because these two young journalists went off half-cocked on their own instead of getting LE involved."

You are assuming way too much to be credible here. Who says that the ACORN investigators are not subject to any rules? The Maryland DA has already made noise about potentially indicting them for illegal recording. If a charge is made, there will be the normal discovery process to find out about their methods, edits, etc.

And who says that there won't be arrests for abetting crime on the part of the ACORN workers? From where are you drawing these conclusions? You may well be right, but I think it's premature to write the postmortem on the issue.

Finally, you bemoan the ACORN stingers' failure to bring law enforcement into the equation, even as you previously condemn law enforcement for playing "gotcha." It's hard to have it both ways.

The ACORN case is a very good example of the kind of issue that can be best illuminated through investigative journalism. Do you really think that the MD DA, or other inner city politicos, or the current federal administration (being run by a former ACORN lawyer) would have been receptive to an investigation? Given that reports of abuses by ACORN have been surfacing for about a decade now, and nothing's been done so far?

It would be nice if law enforcement were even-handed and government was not corrupt and that therefore official channels could always carry us through to justice. But they aren't and they can't. Travis, I agree with the larger, more general point that I think you are trying to make, which is that it stinks to live in a world where you always feel like you might be getting set up, or that there's a hidden camera somewhere watching you. Two points, though:

1. Wishing that people, and the culture they build, could be different, and dreaming up the rules that would work if that different world were reality, is an exercise in futility and frustration;

2. I live in this world, and don't often fear I'm being set up, because other than speeding on the freeway, I try not to live in the gray areas of the law, and when I do, usually because I don't agree that the law is just, I do so openly and specifically, with as full knowledge as I can obtain as to the penalties that may accrue to me due to my behavior (again, you can look at speeding as an example).

The world is messy, because people are flawed, and I believe they will always be flawed, so the world will always be messy and imperfect. I believe that, in this world, the kind of investigative journalism that the ACORN stingers pursued represent, on balance, a positive tool.

Posted by: Barnstable on September 15, 2009 12:41 PM
19. @17...Words have meaning. What part of "denounced" does not mean in total, which means COMPLETELY? Again, "denounced" means you are against the Sting operation and want the Sting operation to be null and void/REMOVED. Again, what part of 'denounced" and also, null and void does not mean COMPLETELY against and therefore REMOVED? Talk about Liberal double talk...You take the CAKE!

Posted by: Daniel on September 15, 2009 01:42 PM
20. "Do we really want a world full of spies, stings, and gotchas?"

Where the targets are people who are breaking the law, wasting taxpayer dollars, and ABETTING CHILD SEX SLAVERY?

Yes. Yes I do want such a world full of spies, stings, and gotchas.

Posted by: pudge on September 15, 2009 01:45 PM
21. Fair enough, barnstable. We are probably not all that far apart. I despse ACORN & everything they represent. Nonetheless I do not want to see them attacked by a process that, once accepted, will inevitably be used against people who don't deserve it. In other words the end does not justify the means.

One note--Randy Weaver did admit to having supplied an illegal shotgun. The BATF undercover guy asked him to do it, and he agreed to. He later said that he did it because he was in desparate financial straits and felt like he needed the money for his family.

But as I stated, he eventually beat the charge on the basis of entrapment. He was lucky enough to get the assistance of hi-powered lawyer Gerry Spence.

Posted by: travis t on September 15, 2009 01:56 PM
22. Travis,

I fully agree that the end does not justify the means. Where we diverge, possibly, is the extent to which these means (sting operations) are justified in and of themselves. And the devil is in those details.

If you are correct about Weaver, then I regret the error. I base my statement on Wikipedia, which asserts his denial but does not mention his later admission.

Posted by: Barnstable on September 15, 2009 02:10 PM
23. @20 pudge...I Agree.

Posted by: Daniel on September 15, 2009 02:27 PM
24. " "Do we really want a world full of spies, stings, and gotchas?"

Where the targets are people who are breaking the law, wasting taxpayer dollars, and ABETTING CHILD SEX SLAVERY?

Yes. Yes I do want such a world full of spies, stings, and gotchas
"

If someone is abetting child sex slavery, I want them arrested, tried, convicted, and put away for decades, if not hung. I want any casual observer to conclude that involvement in child sex slavery is not worth it--the penalty is too big.

None of that will result from this sting by self-styled journalists. These people will not spend even a nanosecond in jail over this.

Posted by: travis t on September 15, 2009 03:35 PM
25. travis: None of that will result from this sting by self-styled journalists. These people will not spend even a nanosecond in jail over this.

Shrug. They committed crimes on tape and the DA has opened an investigation.

And even if they don't go to jail, the fact that they were fired and ACORN was cut off by the Congress -- saving us taxpayers a ton of money -- is good enough reason for them to do what they did.

I have a degree in journalism, and I left the field in part because I dislike so much of what it has become. You won't find a bigger critic of journalism (or pseudo-journalism) than me. But uncovering corruption and saving money, exposing bad people wasting my taxpayer dollars? Bravo. They're heroes.

I would not suggest anyone else engage in this sort of thing: it's very dangerous and can backfire. But so far, this has been a big net gain for society.

Posted by: pudge on September 15, 2009 03:48 PM
26. Pudge, you are a gun-rights guy, no? What is your take on the undercover 'investigation' by Chris Halsne of KIRO re gun shows.

Around of the time of the DC 'sniper' attacks, Halsne did a hidden cam story on how he was able to buy an AR-15-type rifle at a Chehalis gun show with no background check, for cash. Of course that is legal in WA.

The local sheriff was unimpressed; he said that it was legal, and there was no track record of criminality or problems associated with the group that ran the gun show.

WA Ceasefire lauded it, and of the local gun-rights group CCRKBA denounced the sting at the time. Do you?

Posted by: travis t on September 15, 2009 03:55 PM
27. " @17...Words have meaning. What part of "denounced" does not mean in total, which means COMPLETELY? Again, "denounced" means you are against the Sting operation and want the Sting operation to be null and void/REMOVED. Again, what part of 'denounced" and also, null and void does not mean COMPLETELY against and therefore REMOVED? Talk about Liberal double talk...You take the CAKE!
"

'Denounce' means to speak out against it. 'Removal' would presumably mean passing a law to prohibit it, or taking some other action to forcibly get rid of it. Consult one of the free on-line dictionaries.

Posted by: travis t on September 15, 2009 04:41 PM
28. You were Denouncing an Action. That Action was the Sting brought forward upon ACORN. When you are Denouncing an Action you are also, calling for the REMOVAL of that Action/Sting. For you to try to dance around the meaning behind your words that you were not calling for the removal of the Sting is ridiculously plain to any aware observer that you are now, trying to obfuscate your true intent. Once again, you have proved to all who can see and read, that your Full of Liberal CRAP!

Posted by: Daniel on September 15, 2009 05:32 PM
29. travis: everything I said was in the context of uncovering MISDEEDS. Crimes. Wasting taxpayer money. Fraud.

That does not apply to what Halsne did. I criticized a similar report by 20/20, where they got a dude whose sister was killed in the Va Tech shooting to go into a gun show and buy guns. They made out what happens at the gun shows to be some crazy thing, and attacked the state rep whose district includes Va Tech for not cracking down on the "loophole."

But they didn't really mention that the guy who killed his sister bought his guns through a normal gun store, NOT through this "loophole." So what does this have to do with the Va Tech shooting? Nothing, of course.

And the undercover camera exposed absolutely no wrongdoing of any kind.

I have no problem with the undercover camera there ... why should I have a problem with exposing legal activity as legal? I have a problem with the deceptive and dishonest reporting that it was used for.

Posted by: pudge on September 15, 2009 10:00 PM
30. The thrust of the Halsne piece was that selling the rifle (Halsne called it a "sniper's assault rifle") w/o a paper trail was a 'misdeed,' just not an illegal one. And that it should be made illegal.

Still I can accept your distinction between the sting that uncovers illegality versus one that doesn't. Hopefully though, the stingers were damn sure beforehand that the target would take the bait; otherwise they would have wasted the time, and unnecessarily bothered someone who was guilty of nothing. If that happened, I wonder if Okeefe and Giles would be prepared to compensate the target for the time & trouble.

Posted by: travis t on September 16, 2009 05:00 AM
31. I'm turning you in to the White House.

Posted by: Bob Snakely on September 16, 2009 07:50 AM
32. @30 Yeah...Right! We must be damn careful not to Waste the Time of a known corrupt organization such as ACORN. Your misplaced Principles are Pathetic. But then...You're a Liberal!

Posted by: Daniel on September 16, 2009 10:42 AM
33. My concern is that the focus will remain on the group named ACORN, while they can switch their operations to a myriad of other groups that they established or control. The whole web of organizations need to be brought down.

Posted by: Michael H on September 16, 2009 10:57 AM
34. Your concern is well placed, Michael H. Over the years and especially recently, numerous organizations have been formed living off various grants, subsidies etc. All for the purpose of influencing and living off the populace. Yes, there needs to be a Great House Cleaning. But, it wont happen under this Administration. Unfortunately, a Great House Cleaning that is so sorely needed in Government, will not come without the shedding of the blood of the Patriot. As Thomas Jefferson, our third President, so well stated (I'm paraphrasing this) "Every twenty years the Tree of Liberty needs to be Watered by the blood of the Patriot to clean out the Scallywags". What Thomas Jefferson is actually saying is: There needs to be a Revolution of the level where blood will be spilled to root out the Corruption and Tyrants from Government.

Posted by: Daniel on September 16, 2009 12:39 PM
35. @34: Only a bloodthirsty thug like yourself would celebrate the notion of killing people to suit your own political ends. Why don't you go off to some third world country where killing your political opponents is more of an option? I'm sure you'd feel much more at home there, since you don't seem to have a clue what American democracy and freedom is all about.

Posted by: demo kid on September 16, 2009 02:51 PM
36. Well, Well, @35 if it isn't demo shit...The poster boy of what Liberals are all about. I was simply bringing forth what one of our founding father has said and that's too much for you is it? How did you think we won our Liberty from the Tyranny of the Government of England? Do you think we asked politely and said, may we have our Freedom? Get Real! But You, you're a Liberal who believes and supports the killing of tens of millions of Innocent Babies and yet are against giving the Death Penalty to a vicious serial Killer. Go figure? Well, it is plain to see that you will not Fight for your Freedom no matter how enslaved you become. After all, you're a member of the Slavery Party.

Posted by: Daniel on September 16, 2009 04:15 PM
37. There's a fine line between plain hyperbole and dangerous ranting. You cross it. The simple fact that you can't seem to present an argument without using the words "shit" and "slavery party" shows that you're a madman and incapable of reason.

Posted by: demo kid on September 17, 2009 04:46 PM
38. You're a Laugh! It is well known on SP what a nasty lying Liberal you are and if you can't defend yourself after you assaulted a persons posting/comment then, don't go crying when that the person you have assaulted, has called you a well deserved name along with his rebuttal.

Posted by: Daniel on September 17, 2009 11:07 PM
39. @38: No, it's well-known on SP that you're a goddamn lunatic. You can't even ever tell me where I've lied... you just drool all over yourself, ranting about all the liberals that have wronged you in your life.

Stop playing the victim, man. Whiny arch-conservatives are truly the most pathetic creatures of all.

Posted by: demo kid on September 17, 2009 11:40 PM
40. Boy, have you lost IT! You are simply pulling and throwing sound bites of Ad Homonym attacks without any basis of Reality and Truth. What a LOSER! Tell me...Has there EVER been anybody who has agreed with you on ANYTHING on these Forums? Does anyone have an ounce of Respect for you? Of course NOT!

Posted by: Daniel on September 18, 2009 07:49 AM
41. It appears that many "attackers" here seem to be under the believe that the "ends" justify the "means." I am sure that because the organization is one they despise that the feel justified. Would they feel the same if it was an organization they support? I believe this was the point of the original post. The author was not justifying ACORN, but addressing the means used. This does bring up a question though, is why did the journalist feel that they had to resort to this tactic. Is ACORN such a closed-knit community that this was their only way in? Could they have not analyzed who worked their and approach them outside of work to find out information on the atmosphere (i.e., traditional investigative journalism)? Plus, how kosher/legal was the videotaping? I know the video alone may not be covered, but the audio part of it has been addressed by courts before. Did the journalist break the laws? If so, their "gotcha" may be thrown out in courts. This is why the "means" is important. Otherwise it is simple vigilantism.

Posted by: tc on September 18, 2009 02:32 PM
42. When, you're dealing with a known Criminal Organization, you don't pussy foot around like you would with merely a suspected Organization of Criminal activities. No, you go forward with the efficient means to hands down expose them and give them no wiggle room. Catching them on video and audio, did this quite nicely.

Posted by: Daniel on September 18, 2009 02:54 PM
43. I think it is just awful that they did this. Oh my heavens and gee oh golly, that is just not consistant with my slack jaw and my jelly headed liberalism. Just think how bad our super star Obama must feel about this knowing his friends and neighbors over at innocent ACORN are violating the law. We need to change the law and get rid of all you conservative types.

Posted by: Bill Flamming on September 19, 2009 12:52 PM
44. @40: An "ad homonym" attack? Oh dear. Get a dictionary.

@42: "Criminal organization"? That's libel, actually. Name one proven criminal charge against the organization.

Posted by: demo kid on September 19, 2009 02:43 PM
45. Did I mispelled a word...demo shit? Good Gracis Me! Yes, you're a typical Liberal Craphead where a mispelled word is far more important than, the substance and content of the comment. What an IDIOT!

Yes, ACORN is a well known Criminal Organization. Charges have been filed for Voter Fraud in Neveda and charges dealing with the current recent exposure of aiding and abetting tax evasion and child prositution is on line to be brought forward as well. Naturally, ACORN was very quick to fire those who were directly involved to reduced damages directly befalling ACORN itself. None of these charges have been dismissed and it is up to the Courts to disprove any charges, until then, all charges remain intact until proved otherwise. Get it? Naah...You're a Liberal!

Posted by: Daniel on September 19, 2009 03:42 PM
46. @45: A "well known criminal organization" actually, you know, has a record of criminal activity. Politically-motivated attacks made against an organization trying to deliver services to poor folks doesn't constitute a "record of criminal activity".

If, however, you believe your definition is appropriate, should we start calling the Catholic Church a "well-known criminal organization"?

Get it? Naaah... you're a goddamned moron.

Posted by: demo kid on September 19, 2009 08:19 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?