http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/09/16/jon-stewart-mocks-media-acorn-story-where-hell-were-you - http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/09/16/jon-stewart-mocks-media-acorn-story-where-hell-were-you http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-15-2009/the-audacity-of-hos -

 

So the major media ignores another story, further destroying their credibility... Now that FOUR tapes have come out from all over the country. NOW they are starting to talk about it...

 

The congress has already passed legislation to start limiting SOME of their income from the government. (not all?... are you kidding me..., Oh, and 7 of your lovely democrates voted against this. Guess they like the business practices shown...)

 

But, even the comedian on a comedy channel is calling out the lack of guts to go out and do their job by showing what is really going on...

 

 

It took a couple of kids to bust this thing wide open...

 

 

Hysterical on so many levels.

 

That is some funny stuff right there... Too bad ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN ignored it for so long... I wondered how many tapes would have to come out before they started covering it.

 

Turns out it was 4 tapes... I wonder how many are still to be released.

 

With hope and change!

I was very suprised that none of the major news outlets had any news on it that I could find at the time.  

While the brunt of his show is jokes and satire, as you said, when he actually brings people on the show to talk/debate with, he knows his stuff and he makes very good, valid points.  Somehow he does it without screaming at the other person.  Many a news station should take lessons from him.

 

Acorn is losing ALL federal funding...

 

Is that a news story? or just noise as ABC stated...?

 

http://biggovernment.com/ - http://biggovernment.com/

 

 

 

Watch from 1:47 on...

 

Someone needs to change websters dictionary definition of "Change" to the definition of "Corruption"...

 

Now, while I suppose the Acorn-Obama connection is fair game, politically speaking, you should at least get the facts and quotes straight.

 

Obama didn't "work for Acorn as a lawyer" - he was a junior associate at Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, the firm that represented Acorn in some litigation.  Big difference, even for a firm like that.

 

Second, both you and the commentary in your linked video seem to imply that Obama intended on having specifically Acorn people come in and decide national policy - both parts of that are inaccurate.  Watching the video, Obama clearly said that he would meet with "community organizers" (i.e. not just Acorn) in a series of meetings across the nation, so that the organizations can "have input."

 

I fail to see how meeting with citizens' groups to hear their needs and wants is a bad thing, even if some of the people and/or groups turn out to be bad seeds.  The principle remains sound.

 

 

"Obama didn't "work for Acorn as a lawyer" - he was a junior associate at Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, the firm that represented Acorn in some litigation.  Big difference, even for a firm like that."

 

Even huge liberal sites like politifact agree with my statement, peter.

 

Here are some quotes.

 

"Obama and two other attorneys represented ACORN in a 1995 federal civil lawsuit against the state of Illinois — Gov. James Edgar and other state officials were the named defendants — to demand that it enforce a new federal law known as "motor voter," which allowed people to register to vote when they got their driver's licenses. There were five other named plaintiffs in the case, but ACORN was the lead plaintiff. Among the groups that sided with ACORN in the matter: the U.S. Department of Justice and the League of Women Voters. The courts concluded that Illinois had to enforce the law, and the case generated several federal court orders through 1995 and 1996."

 

So, get YOUR facts right... Mine are sound, as Obama did work for Acorn on that lawsuit as their lawyer.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/17/karl-rove/rove-claims-obama-used-to-be-lawyer-for-acorn/ - http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/17/karl-rove/rove-claims-obama-used-to-be-lawyer-for-acorn/

 

 

Here is more lawyer speak. Too bad some of us can read, we don't parse the definition of "is"...

 

"Said Obama: "ACORN is a community organization. Apparently what they've done is they were paying people to go out and register folks, and apparently some of the people who were out there didn't really register people, they just filled out a bunch of names.

"It had nothing to do with us. We were not involved. The only involvement I've had with ACORN was I represented them alongside the U.S. Justice Department in making Illinois implement a motor voter law that helped people get registered at DMVs."

But as evidence of deeper ties, some have pointed to that voter registration drive we mentioned earlier, one that Obama directed in 1992 for Project Vote, a nonprofit focused on voter rights and education.

Back in 1992, Project Vote and ACORN were separate organizations with common goals: getting people to vote, especially low-income, minority and young voters. But in 1994, Project Vote went through a reorganization and the two organizations began to partner with each other on voter registration.

But even in 1992, the groups were close.

In a 2004 article in Social Policy, Toni Foulkes, a Chicago ACORN leader, said that under Obama's leadership, Project VOTE in 1992 delivered 50,000 newly registered Illinois voters that helped Carol Moseley Braun win a Senate seat. Of those 50,000 votes, Foulkes wrote, "ACORN delivered about 5,000 of them."

"Since then," Foulkes wrote, "we have invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year."

The Obama campaign Web site fightthesmears.com states that ACORN never hired Obama as a trainer, organizer or any type of employee."

Sen. Obama said, "I come out of a grass roots organizing background. That's what I did for three and half years before I went to law school. That's the reason I moved to Chicago was to organize. So this is something that I know personally, the work you do, the importance of it.  I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran the Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work."

ACORN's political action committee endorsed Obama for president. We note that Obama said he worked "alongside" ACORN, but not for ACORN. And ACORN itself says Obama didn't work for them during that time."

 

 

No...

 

"Represented" is most definitely not the same as "worked for."  I "represent" my clients; but I "work for" my firm.  I have had hundreds of clients over the years, some of which were quite despicable.  But I didn't "work for" them any more than a physician "works for" his patients.

 

Now, if Obama were in-house counsel to Acorn, then he would be "working for" Acorn, and by law Acorn would be his only client.   But that was not the case here.

 

 

[other stuff]

 

Now, does it appear that Obama was also involved with Acorn beyond his legal representation?  Very possible.  But I see no evidence whatsoever that he actually worked for them.  Like many others, he probably volunteered some time here and there - but again, this is entirely different.

 

 

So if by "lawyer speak" you mean "accurate," then I plead guilty.

 

 

So are we to not take him at his word?... spin that lawyer boy.

 

I love the way you manipulate the english language to twist its meaning when it fits your argument.

 

If I hire a lawyer, that lawyer is working for me, as I am paying his bills through his employer. Your inability to agree with that kind of statement proves my point.

 

Its the same as arguing the definition of "is".

 

"Fighting alongside"?  Is that what you are referring to?

 

 

I love the way you manipulate the english language to twist its meaning when it fits your argument.

 

No manipulation.  Perhaps different contexts, as in...

 

If I hire a lawyer, that lawyer is working for me, as I am paying his bills through his employer. Your inability to agree with that kind of statement proves my point.

 

And, colloquially speaking, you could say that your lawyer is working for you, just like your physician is working for you when he prescribes your meds.  I say that myself on a regular basis.

 

But from a perspective of legal obligations and responsibilities, neither the doctor or the lawyer is working for you.  Unlike plumbers, doctors and lawyers are subject to very strict laws about whom they can and cannot work for, and instead establishes another set of specific rules for client relationships.

 

And when we are discussing the RELATIONSHIP between Obama and Acorn, we ought to use terminology meant specifically to describe that relationship - and the correct word(s) is attorney-client relationship.

 

If you plan on condemning Obama because he represented Acorn, then you must also condemn every criminal defense attorney who ever represented a criminal, and condemn every physician who helped an unsavory character.

 

 

Its the same as arguing the definition of "is".

-------------

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?

 

No wrapping at all - we simply explore what exactly we are talking about.  Let me assure you that countless contract disputes occur specifically because the principals - not the attorneys - discover that they do not agree on what an "obvious" term or word means.  Once the term is put into play, we suddenly uncover subtle-yet-essential disagreements.

 

By parsing through those meanings ahead of time, we arrive at greater agreement and understanding.

 

Take the example at hand.

 

I work for my firm; I represent my clients.

 

If I posted the detailed financial statements of the firm right now, I would have broken no law, but only violated the confidentiality provision in the contract.

 

If I posted even the slightest harmless details about my clients, however, I would violate no contract, but would violate my duty of confidentiality under law.  I would be subject to malpractice suits as well as discipline from the bar, up to potential disbarment.

 

As you can see, the difference between "work for" and "represent" has very direct real world consequences for me.  In fact, every new client relationship begins with a reminder than I am their attorney and ONLY their attorney.

 

Similarly, I am forever reminding everybody else that I do NOT "represent" them (and I specifically do not represent my firm either, BTW).

 

This is not a theoretical distinction.

 

Obama was an attorney at the time, and Acorn was his client.  AS A MATTER OF LAW, therefore, Barack Obama was prohibited from engaging in a variety of non-attorney activities involving Acorn - including being employed, by the way.  Volunteering at the lower levels, probably ok.  Participating in management?  Very much in the danger zone.  The law creates a wall between attorneys and their clients that must be respected.

 

 

I love how the "intellectual brilliance" of the left ignores what people say as they spin in a direction of the definition of the word "is"... Instead of what "is" said, Obama "is" totally tied to community organization, and based on the video I have seen, ALL of which shows a lack of moral character by its "organizers"...

 

 

"Is" that debateable?...

 

FreeEnterprise wrote:     "Since then," Foulkes wrote, "we have invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year." The Obama campaign Web site fightthesmears.com states that ACORN never hired Obama as a trainer, organizer or any type of employee." More lawyer speak, as he did work for them, just in an "unpaid" position as a "helper" running sessions on "power"...

 

 

So he is not "in management at acorn" But, he is in fact TRAINING their management on how to gain power...

 

Start spinning...

 

Here, let me think for a second.

 

Acorn is bad.

 

Obama supported community organization specifically Acorn, he helped train them, and served as their lawyer...

 

Based on that, he should have distanced himself from them already. His waiting to do so until later is "troubling", and a strike to his character.

 

 

 

Me too.

 

mailto:witty@2smt4u.com - witty@2smt4u.com

 

The data isn't all in on this, but there are certainly a significant amount of very bad incidents.  Of course, we should also consider the good that this organization has done.  Mack's link was an interesting read, and I am sure there is more.

 

Based on available data, I am in agreement that Acorn at a minimum needs a fundamental overhaul.  Whether Acorn is "bad" or not is a bit too fuzzy for me, but there are certainly very real problems there.

 

 

Obama supported community organization specifically Acorn, he helped train them, and served as their lawyer...

 

Obama has been very clear that he has supported, and continues to support, community organizations of this type.  As he should - many of these groups do great good and we should be thankful for their existence.

 

As to his involvement with Acorn, it is a little less clear - both in terms of his involvement and whether the involvement is a bad thing. 

 

First off, everybody gets to have a lawyer.  That's part of the fundamental structure of our society.  If you condemn the lawyer for his clients, then you condemn our entire system.

 

Second, isn't providing training a good thing?  From what I can see, these people could use the training.  Maybe we should send Obama back to hold some more training seminars.  Having participated in a few corporate training events myself (as the outside attorney providing training for corporate clients), I can assure you that many organizations need "training" on very simple things.  Here again, even if Acorn is evil (which I am not ready to conclude), then I don't see how providing management training is anything but a good thing.

 

 

Based on that, he should have distanced himself from them already. His waiting to do so until later is "troubling", and a strike to his character.

-------------

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?

 

 

 

Hmmm....