Obama 6(...66)

[ScottM]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

I do not believe that the actions of a few automatically translate to those of an entire organization.

I'm not condoning the recent "witchhunt" launched against ACORN, as much I destest them in my professional life, but they have had a number of problems at the national level, including financial mismanagement, embezzlement, etc. IMHO they went beyond advocating for the poor to a type of Moveon.org-type outfit with its own agenda. They've been a ripe target for the far right for years, and somebody finally managed to unravel them on a national platform.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

I do not believe that the actions of a few automatically translate to those of an entire organization.

Perhaps, but Dale Rathke (brother of the guy who founded ACORN) stole about a million bucks from the organization and his brother tried to cover it up. Can you see Clara Barton's brother stealing a million from the Red Cross and then Clara covering for him? This is corruption way beyond some "wayward" staff members.

 

[walrus]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

I do not believe that the actions of a few automatically translate to those of an entire organization.

When their is a pattern, its more than a few employees. You're a glass half full guy, aren't ya

 

[walrus]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

, I would have in fact been upset at the sitting president neglecting his job for some shallow PR.

Its not PR, its payback.

 

[French Rage]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

Perhaps, but Dale Rathke (brother of the guy who founded ACORN) stole about a million bucks from the organization and his brother tried to cover it up. Can you see Clara Barton's brother stealing a million from the Red Cross and then Clara covering for him? This is corruption way beyond some "wayward" staff members.

But how many people out of their total organization is that? Have any of the illegal things that have been done been part of any sort of organizational process, or has it always been people acting for their own good on their own accord? I mean, hiring from the low income areas where they do work will certainly not help keep down the number of bad apples, and there are certaily a few places they could tighten up their hiring process, like paying people to get voter registration probably doesn't give them the best incentives not to fake stuff, but let's also not pretend that they set out with the intent of hiring people to steal money or fake voter registrations. No one would say the entire Catholic Church was bad because some priests did some bad stuff, and no one would say that all evangelical churches are bad because some people embezzled money from them, so let's separate crookedness of individuals (be it at any level) from that of the organization overall. (Apologies that both of my examples are religious organizations, that's why popped into my head first.)

When their is a pattern, its more than a few employees. You're a glass half full guy, aren't ya

Listen, I don't want to say the problems it has doesn't exist, or that it's a group I myself would really ever consider getting involved with. It could use a lot of cleaning, that goes without saying. My main point (which I've gotten a bit off track of today), though, is it is comical how it's been portrayed in the last year as some sinister boogeyman that's out to enslave every man, woman, and child in America. I mean really, every time you turn around the far right is tying it into the latest conspiracy theory of the week, like it's some secret shadowy cabal when really it's pretty small cheese. Yes, it's faaar from perfect and yes, you or I might disagree with some of its stances or aims, but let's stop making it out to be something it clearly isn't.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

There are two theories on how presidents should govern. The first is the LBJ-Jimmy Carter model with Johnson personally selecting bombing targets in Vietnam and Carter scheduling the White House tennis court. There may be occasions when the president needs to be so intimately involved, but I would suggest that generally it's at least not necessary and at worst counter productive.

In the 80's when Kuh-Daffy had declared his "line of death" 250 miles out into the Gulf of Sidra (which caused Carter to cancel some US naval maneuvers in the Gulf) Reagan ordered the fleet to operate within the "line of death" and also issued orders to our naval aviators that if they were attacked they should fire back. Reagan went to bed and while he was sleeping some Top Guns splashed some Libyan MIGS.

This led to breastbeating on the left that the old man wasn't "engaged," and should have been in the situation room to issue orders, etc etc.

Of course he HAD issued orders, orders which only he could issue, namely "if they shoot at you, blow them to hell." We have a world wide chain of command to carry out the president's orders. And in this case the orders were clear. No ambiguity.

Similarly, when BO's in Denmark if needs be, he can issue orders and they'll be carried out.

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

Obama going in person certainly won't be counter-productive. The IOC is ridiculously political and all about the pomp and circumstance. In-person lobbying is a huge factor. Blair lobbied for London, Putin lobbied for Sochi, and I believe all of the heads of state from Chicago's competitors will be on hand for the IOC's voting.

Obama being there certainly won't hurt, and has a great chance of helping.

We're Americans... we should be above such asinine ***-kissing and kowtowing. As it is, a Chicago Olympics would stand to be more corrupt than Athens 2004. All kinds of federal "OLYMPIC STIMULUS" dollars will be funneled to the Chicago political clique in the name of the games.

Seriously, **** this image stuff... its for children and for sophisticated morons who never grew up.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

But how many people out of their total organization is that? Have any of the illegal things that have been done been part of any sort of organizational process, or has it always been people acting for their own good on their own accord? I mean, hiring from the low income areas where they do work will certainly not help keep down the number of bad apples, and there are certaily a few places they could tighten up their hiring process, like paying people to get voter registration probably doesn't give them the best incentives not to fake stuff, but let's also not pretend that they set out with the intent of hiring people to steal money or fake voter registrations. No one would say the entire Catholic Church was bad because some priests did some bad stuff, and no one would say that all evangelical churches are bad because some people embezzled money from them, so let's separate crookedness of individuals (be it at any level) from that of the organization overall. (Apologies that both of my examples are religious organizations, that's why popped into my head first.)



Listen, I don't want to say the problems it has doesn't exist, or that it's a group I myself would really ever consider getting involved with. It could use a lot of cleaning, that goes without saying. My main point, though, is it is comical how it's been portrayed in the last year as some sinister boogeyman that's out to enslave every man, woman, and child in America. I mean really, every time you turn around the far right is tying it into the latest conspiracy theory of the week, like it's some secret shadowy cabal when really it's pretty small cheese. Yes, it's faaar from perfect and yes, you or I might disagree with some of its stances or aims, but let's stop making it out to be something it clearly isn't.

The soft bigotry of low expectations. They're poor and undereducated and we can't expect them to obey the law or even basic moral precepts? We won't know the depth and extent of the corruption in this organization unless and until it's investigated (and not internally). I'm a protestant, even so, I know the Roman Catholic Church, warts and all, is man's greatest institution, with a 2000 year record where the good far outweighs the bad. And evangelical churches despite their pretty grim record, don't take federal money and don't blackmail banks and other institutions into partnering with them as a way to avoid spurious claims of "institutional racism."

 

[French Rage]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

The soft bigotry of low expectations. They're poor and undereducated and we can't expect them to obey the law or even basic moral precepts?

The people who broke the rules got fired. They were given a chance by the organization, broke the rules, and got fired, where are the low expectations there?

We won't know the depth and extent of the corruption in this organization unless and until it's investigated (and not internally).

I never said we shouldn't investigate them, if this does go farther then let's find out, but until we do we're making (in my opinion faulty) assumptions based on scattered evidence.

I'm a protestant, even so, I know the Roman Catholic Church, warts and all, is man's greatest institution, with a 2000 year record where the good far outweighs the bad. And evangelical churches despite their pretty grim record, don't take federal money and don't blackmail banks and other institutions into partnering with them as a way to avoid spurious claims of "institutional racism."

That's my whole point, there is a lot more to any organization than the acts of a few members.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

The people who broke the rules got fired. They were given a chance by the organization, broke the rules, and got fired, where are the low expectations there?



I never said we shouldn't investigate them, if this does go farther then let's find out, but until we do we're making (in my opinion faulty) assumptions based on scattered evidence.



That's my whole point, there is a lot more to any organization than the acts of a few members.

I'm talking about YOUR low expectations. ACORN fired a few bad apples AFTER THEY WERE EXPOSED. In the alternative, how about not hiring them in the first place? How about proper management and oversight? You keep suggesting that there's some magic number of corrupt employees which will tip your judgement--that this is only "the acts of a few members." Well, we don't know that for sure one way or another, of course, but at this juncture I'm of the opinion that ACORN no longer deserves the benefit of the doubt. A position shared, evidently, by the vast majority of Democrats in the House (including Barney Frank) and Senate.

 

[gregg729]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

None of the problems facing The One are so critical that he can't take 36 hours to lobby for the Olympics to be awarded to Chicago. And to argue otherwise strikes me as a cheap shot. Air Force One is a flying situation room in the event something does happen that requires his immediate attention. Since presidents are always facing some sort of crisis somewhere this argument logically takes you to asserting that the president not only can never leave the USA, he can't leave the White House. Full disclosure: I'm a suburban Chicagoan.

It surely is more comforting to know he's only gonna be there for a few hours. And I definitely wasn't aware of other heads of state doing the same thing in times past. But we are arguably in the worst way in 7 decades, what with the economy and losing the war to the Taliban/al Queda. If I'm gonna be accused of taking a cheap shot at Obama, I think I'm at least entitled to an explanation on why a simple phone call to Copenhagen just would not suffice.

OK, that's a fair enough point and one I thank you for clarifying, us coming at this from different angles certainly didn't help the conversation .....
No problem, keeping it civil helps us stay on topic and avoids getting off on tangents.

No worries man, you're cool. If I had been paying closer attention to the big picture, I would have pointed out I was talking about something different a couple posts before that.

And I retroactively and in advance apologize to you and anyone else for sometimes being a sarcastic wiseass. But that's my nature, and I'm not overly concerned about changing it.

I do not believe that the actions of a few automatically translate to those of an entire organization.

lol, and having said that I do need to reply to this. Look, we're for the most part fairly intelligent people here. I don't believe that Walrus or most on here believe that either.

He was asking you something else entirely - whether or not you see a pattern emerging in ACORN? I do. Most of the American public does. And Bank of America and several of their ex-corporate partners do as well. You don't?

Brave Sir Robin?

Just not responding to devisive posts, dude.

But the reference scored points with me so I will partially indulge you. (I must say though with the liberal White House, Congress, television networks, and print media pounding their drumbeat everywhere I turn, I kinda feel more like Sir Lancelot.... ya know, slashing my sword at the foundations of a castle?

Your comment, whatever it was, about my not reading (or posting?) HR 3200 gave me a good laugh. Sounds like you missed my post where I posted the link to the unabridged text of HR 3200 and then proceeded to point out a half dozen or so particularly alarming clauses of that duplicitous bill. For a couple days I believe, I tried to engage, beg, and goad people into talking about the actual text of the bill. Saddeningly there were zero takers on my offer, liberal, conservative, or otherwise.

Regarding the rest of your diatribe, you are entitled to your opinions. I admittedly enjoy being a sarcastic wiseass towards political figures I have no respect for but it has always been a policy of mine to not stoop down to responding to personal attacks. Staying above the mudslinging range is the proverbial "Holy Hand Grenade to the killer rabbit." And I'm well aware I'm not perfect in that regard so you may think of that what you like.

Didn't get the "now watch my drive" reference, did you?

All I'm saying is this: people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. It's highly amusing to listen to people on the right talk about Obama's spending and his time away from the office, considering what was just in the office before him.

The whole thing is especially overblown, considering his itinerary (per the AP):

Now, before you start, I'm not saying "don't criticize Obama". I'm saying that everyone out there who gave W. a free pass for stuff like this should really keep their traps shut this time around. Two days (or even three, if he actually stays longer) is peanuts compared to some of the lengthy sabaticals we've seen Presidents take in the past. Especially when you consider that W. hunting on his ranch for a few weeks or Clinton getting a rub and a tug in Martha's Vineyard are hardly the same as trying to court the Olympics.

At least have the decency to be consistent instead of staying within the lines drawn for you by partisan pundits.

I thought you said, "Now watch this drive" but you're correct, either way I don't get it. Maybe you have me confused with someone else because I didn't give Bush a free pass on anything, except for going into Afghanistan. I'm actually on record as saying Bush was a poor President.

Up above, I slightly modified my thoughts on Obama's trip and reiterated my wondering why a simple phone call couldn't get the job done - I'm having doubts as to whether anyone will help me out with this.

As far as spending goes.... You're kidding comparing the two, right? It's like comparing a wound that needs a few stitches to a wound that needs a tourniquet. Bush's spending was bloated and excessive due to 2 wars against terror - and yes, the expensive one proved to be based on bad information but none of us knew that at the time. (FYI, I'm not going to engage in any form of Iraq war debate, that's so 2004.) The costs of Katrina and 9/11 itself, although they are chump change in the Obama Era, were very costly in the pre-Obama Era. Oh yeah, and creating another huge bureacracy called the Homeland Security Department was another huge money pic. So we can see where the money went back then.

On the other hand, despite promising a "unprecedented level of transparency," The One's expenditures have been shrouded behind an opaque wall. Some things are becoming apparent though. While national security expenditures are being slashed, the stimulus package is chock full of earmarks. Tens, perhaps hundreds of billions have been spent nationalizing portions of the economy. Another trillion is lined up to begin the nationalization of the healthcare industry. And yet another trillion is lined up through cap and trade to put a chokehold on the economy's energy production and general ability to grow. Not to mention that entitlement payments (that means handouts) in 2011 (or is it 2010?) will exceed the total costs of 8 years of war in Iraq somewhere to the tune of $160 billion. The bottom line is that all we're really sure of is that spending has skyrocketed to a very dangerous and debaucherous level since the Bush years - even the most apolitical, middle of the road American is wondering how long this can be sustained.

9 months on the job and this clown's already got his ducks lined up to in very short order become the biggest spender in the history of civilization. And he's bankrupting the next generation of Americans before our very eyes. So please don't compare Obama's spending to any other human being that ever lived on this Earth because that would be a rather pathetic joke.

 

[French Rage]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

I'm talking about YOUR low expectations. ACORN fired a few bad apples AFTER THEY WERE EXPOSED. In the alternative, how about not hiring them in the first place? How about proper management and oversight?

Yes, they should have fired them before they were exposed, before they had actually done anything to deserve firing. (Is there some story on, for example, the people who gave the advice to the pimp that they had been doing this repeatedly before that I am not aware of? If so, then yes they should have fired them earlier upon those earlier transgressions, but nothing I've seen has even remotely hinted at that.) I will concede you better oversight on the hiring and management, when they know they are hiring from troubled and low income areas the onus should definitely be on the organization to make sure its people are sticking to the rules.

You keep suggesting that there's some magic number of corrupt employees which will tip your judgement--that this is only "the acts of a few members." Well, we don't know that for sure one way or another, of course, but at this juncture I'm of the opinion that ACORN no longer deserves the benefit of the doubt. A position shared, evidently, by the vast majority of Democrats in the House (including Barney Frank) and Senate.

Believe me I would like to see everything gotten to the bottom of, I'm just not at the point where I think they're the manifestation of pure evil that they've been portrayed as.

 

[dropthatpuck]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

How dare those dirty communists point out the double standards of those who actually love America?

RED DAWN!!!!

Now see, if you're going to use examples from the entertainment industry in a timeframe when you weren't even a zygote, I'd have picked "1984". It's a little more accurate.

 

[French Rage]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

No worries man, you're cool. If I had been paying closer attention to the big picture, I would have pointed out I was talking about something different a couple posts before that.

And I retroactively and in advance apologize to you and anyone else for sometimes being a sarcastic wiseass. That's my nature, and I'm not overly concerned about changing it.

It's the USCHO Cafe, sarcasm is a second language! No one would ask you to change that.

lol, and having said that I do need to reply to this. Look, we're for the most part fairly intelligent people here. I don't believe that Walrus or most on here believe that either.

He was asking you something else entirely - whether or not you see a pattern emerging in ACORN? I do. Most of the American public does. And Bank of America and several of their ex-corporate partners do as well.

The pattern I see is that they have done a very poor job of hiring people with the right intentions to join their organization. Certainly the buck has to stop somewhere and it is on them to make sure, especially given their recent track record, that they screen such people out and put them on a tighter leash while employed there. That said, I don't view any of that as actively encouraged by the organization, but it is also ACORN's responsibility for what is done in their name. Overall, while it is a house in need of a lot of cleaning, it is not a malevolent cause, so for its own sake and that of those it wants to help, it needs to get itself right.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

9 months on the job and this clown's already got his ducks lined up to in very short order become the biggest spender in the history of civilization. And he's bankrupting the next generation of Americans before our very eyes. So please don't compare Obama's spending to any other human being that ever lived on this Earth because that would be a rather pathetic joke.

Last I looked, this is a two party system. The Republican years were the most extreme example of unnecessary spending in generations...and the Republican years left the country in the worst shape in generations, requiring the most spending to resuscitate it. And its president carried much responsibility for both. The right has shown itself to be horrible managers of fiscal responsibility. As a result, the group has settled back into its position of competency…perennial complainers from the sidelines.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

I'm talking about YOUR low expectations. ACORN fired a few bad apples AFTER THEY WERE EXPOSED. In the alternative, how about not hiring them in the first place? How about proper management and oversight? You keep suggesting that there's some magic number of corrupt employees which will tip your judgement--that this is only "the acts of a few members." Well, we don't know that for sure one way or another, of course, but at this juncture I'm of the opinion that ACORN no longer deserves the benefit of the doubt. A position shared, evidently, by the vast majority of Democrats in the House (including Barney Frank) and Senate.

1. They should be investigated to expose the depth of the corruption and/or mismanagement
2. I think French had a good point however - we don't know yet the depth of the corruption and how it compares to any other 'business' entity of similar size and scope.

That said you are correct that it deserves significant scrutiny, some just seem to disagree how widespread we should assume it to be.

Your comment, whatever it was, about my not reading (or posting?) HR 3200 gave me a good laugh. Sounds like you missed my post where I posted the link to the unabridged text of HR 3200 and then proceeded to point out a half dozen or so particularly alarming clauses of that duplicitous bill.

You were already exposed there because none of your commentary cited a single word of specific language within the document iteself. You were implored over and over again to recite specific verbiage from the text and have yet to do so. Therefore your faux umbrage for this, as well as your calls for non-divisive discourse (The One, The Clown, etc., etc., etc.) earns you no gold stars here.

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

We're Americans... we should be above such asinine ***-kissing and kowtowing. As it is, a Chicago Olympics would stand to be more corrupt than Athens 2004. All kinds of federal "OLYMPIC STIMULUS" dollars will be funneled to the Chicago political clique in the name of the games.

Seriously, **** this image stuff... its for children and for sophisticated morons who never grew up.

*** kissing is how the game is played. It's how the game is played here, too - it's just a slightly different set of rules.

How should we be "above" that? We're neck deep in it.

As far as image and soft power goes, ignore it at your own peril. Even those that specifically wanted to look like they didn't care did so by crafting a specific image of themselves.

It surely is more comforting to know he's only gonna be there for a few hours. And I definitely wasn't aware of other heads of state doing the same thing in times past. But we are arguably in the worst way in 7 decades, what with the economy and losing the war to the Taliban/al Queda. If I'm gonna be accused of taking a cheap shot at Obama, I think I'm at least entitled to an explanation on why a simple phone call to Copenhagen just would not suffice.

Seriously?

If you were interviewing for a job, and they asked you to come into the office, would you reply "no, a simple phone call should suffice."

There's value in face to face transactions. That's why, despite the internet and telephones and all those technologies that make the world smaller, people still congregate in cities, people still have meetings, etc.

 

[Rover]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

It makes it real hard to have a rational discussion when you lob insults, and use events from 2 decades ago for comparison, as a deflection away from having any substantive response.

And FWIW, had I been older then an elementary school kid, I would have in fact been upset at the sitting president neglecting his job for some shallow PR.

Oh boo hoo hoo. This is a dumb argument made by somebody who's most likely jobless and therefore has too much time on their hands repeating something out here that a talk show host told them to be angry about.

However, pointing out their lack of outrage when one of their own does it really cuts through all the BS, doesn't it?

And for the record, while I was a young teen when Reagan launched his bid for the World Cup, I thought it was a great idea and I'm not even a soccer fan. Why not? For all the talk we get about Obama not preaching to the world that America is #1, doesn't him pushing for the US to host the Olympics kinda disprove that point? Or is it the people who complain constantly, but offer no solutions of their own, known as knuckledraggers for short, have again been exposed as hypocrites?

 

[ScottM]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

We're Americans... we should be above such asinine ***-kissing and kowtowing.

The fact you live in the DC area makes this statement all the more amusing.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

iirc it was more of a teenage cult film than anything.

As well as either an homage or a ripoff (depending on your tastes).

I remember right wingers getting their panties in a bunch over Thelma and Louise. Some people just have nothing better to do.