Utopia Talk / Politics / Baltimore AG may charge ACORN activists

Aeros Member	Thu Sep 24 22:02:32 Read this little quip released by the Baltimore City Attorney General -- " We have received inquiries from citizens and the media asking whether the Baltimore City Stateâ??s Attorneys Office would initiate a criminal investigation for acts allegedly committed at ACORN offices located in Baltimore. The only information received in reference to this alleged criminal behavior was a YouTube video. Upon review by this office, the video appears to be incomplete. In addition, the audio portion could possibly have been obtained in violation of Maryland Law, Annotated Code of Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article §10-402, which requires two party consent. "If it is determined that the audio portion now being heard on YouTube was illegally obtained, it is also illegal under Maryland Law to willfully use or willfully disclose the content of said audio. The penalty for the unlawful interception, disclosure or use of it is a felony punishable up to five years.
Hot Rod Member	Thu Sep 24 22:08:27 Bastards.
Clitoral Hood Member	Thu Sep 24 22:55:20 so in 1 thread you denied the accusation of wanting acorn to be thrown out of court no matter how the evidence was obtained, yet in this thread your post clearly condones such an opinion?
Aeros Member	Thu Sep 24 23:28:22 huh?
pillz Member	Thu Sep 24 23:56:50 ahaha. hot rod defending people who have no respect for the law. whats new
Aeros Member	Fri Sep 25 09:00:07 its okay to break the law if you are sticking it to liberals pillz.
Hot Rod Member	Fri Sep 25 09:19:05 They clearly broke the law and deserve to be punished for it. My point, which I so eloquently made above is, they do not have to be prosecuted for it unless there is a *criminal* complaint made by the damaged parties. This is, as I understand it, a decision made by the prosecutors office. It was them I referred to above. Then to there is the question of why such a law was passed in the first place. Why would an honest politician vote for it? I can think of none that really stands up. The law is obviously there to protect the corrupt. Looks like that is what they are trying to do.
Internet Bully Member	Fri Sep 25 09:45:24 " they do not have to be prosecuted for it unless there is a *criminal* complaint made by the damaged parties." Not necessarily. "The law is obviously there to protect the corrupt. " Absolutely not, many states have similar laws and are there to protect the privacy of others.
Internet Bully Member	Sat Sep 26 02:06:11 HR?
Internet Bully Member	Sat Sep 26 02:10:13 I read the other thread that was spammed and there is another thread discussing the matter. But you are ignoring it, so how about you come back here and address the claim that you've made. If you honestly believe that these laws were passed to protect the corrupt. You are indeed out of your fucking mind. Now, stop hiding and address this issue.
Hot Rod Member	Sat Sep 26 09:32:20 I think I made my *OPINION* perfectly clear in my previous post, just as you and others have made your opinions perfectly clear. I see nothing to address. Why should I enter into a discussion with you where you start out declaring that I am out of my fucking mind. Perhaps when you mature and learn how to carry on a mature and intelligent conversation I might consider explaining my reasoning. End of discussion.
The Zero Identity Member	Sat Sep 26 09:44:48 You whined and complained about this particular issue to be carried out in another thread. A thread that had already been made about the particular subject. So now we have stage 4 and stage 5 all over again. Brilliant. Thank god you complain about people not debating about anything and then all you do is sputter a bunch of bullshit and then stamp it at the end, "end of discussion". It's rather pointless to discuss anything with you because you pull this stupid shit. No wonder you get your threads spammed. The point is, your "opinion" is wrong. Horribly wrong, and if you don't know why privacy laws are in place then you need to go to research the reasons. Instead of foolishy saying that these laws were created to protect the corrupt. You are the one that has been complaining and bitching about this current administration invading our rights, our privacy, etc,etc. More reason why privacy laws were put into place then you turn around and all of sudden change your tune that privacy laws were created to protect the corrupt. You are a god damn fool.
Hot Rod Member	Sat Sep 26 09:53:23 Why should I condescend to talk to you people that change your tags at the drop of a hat, and I don't know who you are, when all you do is insult me? Come back when you grow up.
The Zero Identity Member	Sat Sep 26 10:01:34 It doesn't matter what my tag is. If it makes you feel better I'm Internet Bully. But regardless of what my tag is, the fucking message is clear and concise. As I said, you complained that others were hijacking your thread about another subject and said it should be done in another thread. Well suprise, the thread about that particular subject already existed. So here we are, trying to discuss it as it was your complaint. But now you are hiding behind the "wa,wa,wa, well why should I talk to you about this, since your name is, um, um, different" excuse. Oh spare me.... The subject matter is still there, distinctly and concised. Either address the issue or come up with more pathetic excuses to ignore it.
Hot Rod Member	Sat Sep 26 10:15:03 And who the fuck is "Internet Bully?" What other thread?
The Zero Identity Member	Sat Sep 26 10:16:46 The other thread, the first thread that was spammed. Stop playing dumb. And you know who I am, you've debated me other times when I posted as Internet Bully, in face the other thread you addressed me regarding about officers arresting a woman. Seriously....
The Zero Identity Member	Sat Sep 26 10:22:27 Yeah "what other thread?" Indeed. http://www...hread?id=politics&thread=24397
The Zero Identity Member	Sat Sep 26 10:45:47 Where did you go HR?
Hot Rod Member	Sat Sep 26 10:46:05 "you've debated me other times when I posted as Internet Bully..." Yeah, but after I determined you are an idiot I avoid you most of the time. TIZZI - Yeah "what other thread?" Indeed. That thread's subject concerned a gag order of the the insurance industry by the democrats which is *TOTALLY AND UNQUESTIONABLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.* Is that why no one responded to it? Sure I said open another thread which I responded to. (See above.) Right after which I had to get ready to go to lunch and do my grocery shopping. By the time I returned at 3:00 PM you had said I was out of my fucking mind. I saw no reason to respond to you after that. Especially since you refuse to use your original tag and please, don't try to tell me that is your original tag.
The Zero Identity Member	Sat Sep 26 10:53:47 "Yeah, but after I determined you are an idiot I avoid you most of the time. " You mean after you've got your ass handed to you in a debate, because you cannot offer no counter and continued your hypocracy and had your faulty logic exposed. Yeah, I would avoid me too. "That thread's subject concerned a gag order of the the insurance industry by the democrats which is *TOTALLY AND UNQUESTIONABLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.* Is that why no one responded to it? " Hardly anyone responded to as it was spammed. But the subject matter regarding privacy laws dumbass was brought up and you bitched about it being hijacked and that it should be carried on in another thread about it, which incidently the thread already existed regarding that particular subject and here we are. With you again demonstrating blatant hypocracy. "Sure I said open another thread which I responded to. (See above.) Right after which I had to get ready to go to lunch and do my grocery shopping. By the time I returned at 3:00 PM you had said I was out of my fucking mind." You are out of your fucking mind. I won't deny this. " saw no reason to respond to you after that. Especially since you refuse to use your original tag and please, don't try to tell me that is your original tag." Stage 4, stage 5. As I said, my message, argument, and points are quite clear regardless of what my tag is. Either focus on that or there is no reason to continue, if a tag bothers you that much in a debate, then you have no grasp of substance. Like I said, you complaining about tags is irrelevant and is only showing how you are incapable of addressing the issue as using it as an excuse NOT to address it. Get over the tag issue. Address the points.
Internet Bully Member	Sat Sep 26 10:55:13 Would this be better?
The Zero Identity Member	Sat Sep 26 11:11:17 *any counter
Hot Rod Member	Sat Sep 26 11:13:48 TIZZI - which incidently the thread already existed regarding that particular subject and here we are. For the third time. What fucking thread? BTW, I did respond in this thread. Guess you were to busy thinking up insults to read it. "They clearly broke the law and deserve to be punished for it. My point, which I so eloquently made above is, they do not have to be prosecuted for it unless there is a *criminal* complaint made by the damaged parties. This is, as I understand it, a decision made by the prosecutors office. It was them I referred to above. Then to there is the question of why such a law was passed in the first place. Why would an honest politician vote for it? I can think of none that really stands up. The law is obviously there to protect the corrupt. Looks like that is what they are trying to do." IBty, no. Why don't you go back to your original tag. I think I already know what it was.
Hot Rod Member	Sat Sep 26 11:17:04 FROM ANOTHER THREAD: "Rugian - "THIS COUNTRY BELIEVES IN RESPECTING PEOPLES' *PRIVACY* YOU DUMBSHIT. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CORRUPTION AND ISN'T SOME VAST CONSPIRACY TO ASSIST ACORN. GODDAMN YOU ARE STUPID." That is *YOUR* opinion, which you are certainly entitled too. Just as I am entitled to mine. FYI, evidently the law is written in such a way as to prevent Investigative Reporters from exposing corruption as well as protecting individuals from nosy neighbors. Any law that *CAN IN ANY WAY* protect the corrupt, is indeed a corrupt law." THAT IS MY OPINION!!!!!!!!!! Nothing more needs to be said by me on this subject and I have other things to do.
The Zero Identity Member	Sat Sep 26 11:22:59 "For the third time. What fucking thread?" You are not smart. At all. Period. Let's try again maybe, MAYBE you will get this. In this thread; http://www...hread?id=politics&thread=24397 You complained since Rugian brought up and issue about privacy laws. Your complaint was to discuss this in another thread. THIS IS THE THREAD THAT WAS ALREADY OPENED REGARDING ABOUT IT SINCE THAT PARTICULAR SUBJECT ALREADY EXISTED......IN THIS THREAD! See you get it now? Wasn't that hard. Not a difficult concept. I mean, you did complain about that thread being hijacked. But here we have a thread discussing a particular subject that you complained was hijacking your thread. USE YOUR FUCKING BRAIN! "BTW, I did respond in this thread. Guess you were to busy thinking up insults to read it." I read them and replied. I guess you are too stupid to come up with any counter arguments to mine. No, we are going to keep repeating the same thing over and over that has been torn to shred disregarding any logic. Despite the fact you are missing the point of why privacy laws were created in the first place that is contrary to your 'opinion'. Congratulations. You fail.
The Zero Identity Member	Sat Sep 26 11:25:48 "FYI, evidently the law is written in such a way as to prevent Investigative Reporters from exposing corruption as well as protecting individuals from nosy neighbors. Any law that *CAN IN ANY WAY* protect the corrupt, is indeed a corrupt law." THAT IS MY OPINION!!!!!!!!!! " Really? Because privacy laws or the concept of them started in the 1800s. Anyways if we are to use your logic. VIRTUALLY EVERY FUCKING LAW CAN BE USED IN ANY WAY TO PROTECT THE CORRUPT! "Nothing more needs to be said by me on this subject and I have other things to do. " Stage 5 complete.
Hot Rod Member	Sat Sep 26 12:03:07 TIZZY - You whined and complained about this particular issue to be carried out in another thread. A thread that had already been made about the particular subject. That is the fucking thread I keep asking about that you refuse to post. You keep referring back to my insurance thread. You are talking in circles. Enough of you nonsense. Identify that thread or shut the fuck pu. I'm through with you.
The Zero Identity Member	Sat Sep 26 12:08:13 I've already identified that thread many times. It appears that you are amazingly blind but yet can still see the words on your computer. That thread linked, LOOK AT YOUR COMPLAINTS then LOOK AT THE SUBJECT CONTENT OF THIS THREAD. The thread about that particular subject you are complaining about that is hijacking your thread IS THIS THREAD as stated. Good god, are you this fucking dense?
The Zero Identity Member	Sat Sep 26 12:16:00 Let's break it down. TZI: links threads about gag order to point out specific complaints made by HR regarding his hijacking of his thread. HR: Posts content of the thread about dem's gag order; including complaints about it being hijacked because poster(s) point out HR's issues with privacy laws. At the beginning of the thread HR continues to complain that if that particular subject (privacy laws) is to be talked about, do so in another thread. TZI: Refers to this thread because that particular subject is being spoke of in this thread regarding privacy laws. Since the other thread cannot continue that particular subject of discussion as it was spammed. HR: Too fucking stupid to see the connection. Keep requesting the link of thread to be posted, which was already done, but HR continues to fail to see the connection because as stated previous, "too fucking stupid to see.." Excellent synopsis as I do say so for myself.
Hot Rod Member	Sat Sep 26 13:13:36 "A thread that had already been made about the particular subject." Look Penis Breath, I have had enough of you. You clearly talk about a thread prior to this one where the subject is about ACORN, but you keep refering "back" to my thread about the gag order. MY THREAD ABOUT THE GAG ORDER WAS POSTED >>>>>AFTER<<<<< THIS THREAD. So what fucking ACORN thread did I whine and complain about *PRIOR TO THIS THREAD BEING POSTED?* "You whined and complained about this particular issue to be carried out in another thread. A thread that had already been made about the particular subject." You dumb fuck, if you can't keep your shit straight then go pound your pud and leave the rest of us alone. You dipshits have wasted a half day of my time when I could have been doing something poductive, now buggar off.
The Zero Identity Member	Sat Sep 26 13:33:34 "Look Penis Breath, I have had enough of you. You clearly talk about a thread prior to this one where the subject is about ACORN, but you keep refering "back" to my thread about the gag order. MY THREAD ABOUT THE GAG ORDER WAS POSTED >>>>>AFTER<<<<< THIS THREAD. So what fucking ACORN thread did I whine and complain about *PRIOR TO THIS THREAD BEING POSTED?*" You dumbfuck, how can this be such a simple concept that is beyond your comprehension is absurd to me. Again you are failing to see the connection. Ask yourself you fucking stupid old man of what this thread is about. It is about ACORN, what was a sub-argument in this thread, it was about PRIVACY LAWS THAT YOU CLAIM WERE PART OF SOME KIND OF CONSPIRACY TO PROTECT CORRUPT POLICITIANS. Now take a fucking look at the thread that I linked regarding 'dem's gag order', THAT YOU MADE AND REQUESTED TO BE DELETED. Two things about that thread THAT YOU MADE. One, it was spammed. TWO, YOU COMPLAINED THAT IT WAS HIJACKED BECAUSE OF A SUBJECT NOT PERTAINING TO THE OP WAS INTRODUCED AND YOU STATED THAT IF THAT PARTICULAR SUBJECT BEING ABOUT PRIVACY LAWS SHOULD BE CONTINUED IN ANOTHER THREAD. INSTEAD OF MAKING A NEW THREAD ABOUT IT. THERE WAS A THREAD DISCUSSING ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR SUBJECT, THAT SUBJECT BEING PRIVACY LAWS< PRIVACY LAWS< PRIVACY LAWS. THIS THREAD RIGHT HERE, THE ONE WE ARE TALKING IN WAS THE ONE BEING REFERENCED ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR SUBJECT. The one that you are emphatically denying we are talking about. You being stuck on this fucking concept is in fact a way for you to not address the real fucking issue. The issue of where you complained and "in your opinion" say that privacy laws were made to protect 'corrupt politicians' and BY EXTENSION you continue to say that "Any law that *CAN IN ANY WAY* protect the corrupt, is indeed a corrupt law." With this logic, any law that is created or exist now can be used to protect the corrupt so therefore, all laws protect the corrupt. But no, you are too god damn stupid to see how this fucking logic fails. Futhermore, you continue to ignore your own hypocracy by stating before about Obama's administration regarding an email list compiling data of the users, including another article regarding about social websites that the white house use and keeps and archive, where you have been a very critical person about that and in those complaints you cited about the constitutional rights of the people ESPECIALLY in the regards of privacy laws, that you are NOW saying were only created to protect the corrupt. Good fucking night sir, do you not see your own blinded, blacked out, darkened, warped sense of fucking resolve and blatant hypocracy when you make such statements as these? Do you wake up in the morning and decided, "hey, I'm going to be as dense as I can possible be and in now way realize my own fucking contridictions." Why is this so hard for you to realize how wrong on so many levels you are about this? OH! That's right, you are doing the five stages of hot rod, I should have known. Seriously, this is where you should probably stop talking, you stupid, idiotic, poor excuse of a person, who cannot grasp such notions where a 1st grader would pinpoint hypocracy. You are indeed a failure and this thread particulary demonstrates that you are incapable of using any critical thinking skills whatsoever.
purvis Member	Sat Sep 26 13:39:09 "You being stuck on this fucking concept is in fact a way for you to not address the real fucking issue." Of COURSE it is. he ALWAYS does that, right up until he starts refusing to debate the matter. Not sure which stage this is. Anyway, one NEVER tries to debate Hot Shit, because he's insane. All he deserves is to be virtually spat in the face like the lying, slandering, false rumor-mongering fucking nazi cunt he is.
The Zero Identity Member	Sat Sep 26 13:42:22 At times I wish the fucking Stages were reposted. But, I don't know why he is getting so fucking frustrated since he is the fucking imbecile who isn't grasping such a simple concept. "Of COURSE it is. he ALWAYS does that, right up until he starts refusing to debate the matter." He should just start posting as Troll Rod.
purvis Member	Sat Sep 26 13:47:37 He's frustrated because everyone here pokes huge holes in the retarded redneck fantasy fascist world he was brought up to believe in and everytime the united board utterly destroys what he's believed in his whole life without ever questioning, it destroys a piece of his reality and brings his castle in the sand crashing down. It frightens him, quite simply, and being a nazi bastard, he reacts with lies, spite, false rumors, slander and insanity.
The Zero Identity Member	Sat Sep 26 13:50:08 I love this part though. "You dipshits have wasted a half day of my time when I could have been doing something poductive, now buggar off." LOL, it's your fault that I sat here at the computer and argued about nothing like I always do, it's all of your faults!!
purvis Member	Sat Sep 26 13:52:39 I think trolling, lying, false rumor-mongering, insulting people and then whingeing in the mod thread about being a poor, poor victim is stage 6.
The UP Archivist Member	Sat Sep 26 13:55:39 STAGE FOUR: Victimization/Martyrdom â?? This is actually a two-term stage. In the Victim/Martyr stage Hot Rod will portray himself as the victim being ostracized for his views because of past and present prejudices. This stems from you repetitiously destroying his arguments and this is where he is beaten into submission because he will realize that he has been incorrect. Do not let this fool you. This is only a ruse for the next term. He will then present himself as a martyr for all others who agree or think alike as he, though there are few who do. He will insist that he was only speaking for those who cannot stand up for themselves as he is doing them a favor. Even though not in so many words he will concede to an extent, he was only behaving the way he was because there are those who cannot stand up to the â??liberal gangsâ?? of UP.
The UP Archivist Member	Sat Sep 26 13:56:32 STAGE FIVE: Superficial Retreat â?? This is the final stage in The Five Stages of Hot Rod. This is rather a simple but at the same time tedious stage. What you should expect after his â??concessionâ??; concession being that he claims that he has to leave, quits reading your posts because it does have a valid point, or simply quits responding in the thread, he will bid you a farewell thinking that he has made his point and you should only accept it and move on. But you will find yourself making another point that again will dismiss his notion and this will only bug him as he will return to make â??one final commentâ?? that should be the end-game. This may leave you bewildered but satisfied that it is over to an extent as you realize that you will not have to encounter him again for a time.
purvis Member	Sat Sep 26 13:56:47 " though there are few who do" JB and Licker
Hot Rod Member	Sat Sep 26 19:10:35 "THIS THREAD RIGHT HERE, THE ONE WE ARE TALKING IN WAS THE ONE BEING REFERENCED ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR SUBJECT." "I've already identified that thread many times. It appears that you are amazingly blind but yet can still see the words on your computer." "You whined and complained about this particular issue to be carried out in another thread. A thread that had already been made about the particular subject." Those posts were *ALL* made in this thread. You are so fucked up and scatterbrained I have lost track of what you are talking about and, obviously, you have too. Incidentally, The White House program I complained about was *the government gathering data* about private citizens which is unconstitutional. The Maryland law is not there to protect the individual from government, those laws are already in place. The only reasonable purpose for Maryland to pass such a law is to protect individuals from each other. IMHO, the reason they passed it was to protect themselves from investigative reporters. Something that should have been addressed in the language of the law if it were above board. WHICH I HAVE CLEARLY STATED SEVERAL TIMES. Now, I am through with you and your nonsense until you are ready to conduct yourself as an adult and stop trying my patience.
purvis Member	Sat Sep 26 19:24:32 stage 5
Hot Rod Member	Sat Sep 26 19:35:46 Up yours too, just the way you like it.
purvis Member	Sat Sep 26 19:38:30 ^Stage 5 Confirmed, you miserable, slimey cunt.
Hot Rod Member	Sat Sep 26 19:52:44 ^-Stage *ZERO* intellect confirmed asshole.
purvis Member	Sat Sep 26 20:44:52 ^-Stage *ZERO* integrity, honor, intelligence, morals confirmed you slithering fucking carcass of a worm.
Hot Rod Member	Sat Sep 26 21:06:36 Yes, your Sainted Mother taught you all about "integrity, honor, intelligence, morals" didn't she?
purvis Member	Sat Sep 26 21:25:17 No, your Sainted *Whore* Mother taught you nothing about "integrity, honor, intelligence, morals" did she? Thought Not.
The Zero Identity Member	Sun Sep 27 01:51:18 "Those posts were *ALL* made in this thread. You are so fucked up and scatterbrained I have lost track of what you are talking about and, obviously, you have too." Yep, nothing gets by you Rod, except for the sheer fact of where you complained about your thread being hijacked so the focus of that subject that was 'hijacking' your thread was brought back to here, but apparently you are failing to grasp this. Blame on old age, blame on your slow wit, whatever you blame it on I don't care, bottomline is that you missed the connected so many times it's pointless to continue it. Even if we do the connect the dots game to demonstrate you would still continue to get lost and fail. "Incidentally, The White House program I complained about was *the government gathering data* about private citizens which is unconstitutional." Wasn't unconstitional, but they still fall under privacy laws, the same laws that you now complain about that were created to protect corrupt politicians. Remember your quote: "Any law that *CAN IN ANY WAY* protect the corrupt, is indeed a corrupt law." And again with that logic, virtually every law in existence is a corrupt law. "The Maryland law is not there to protect the individual from government, those laws are already in place. The only reasonable purpose for Maryland to pass such a law is to protect individuals from each other. IMHO, the reason they passed it was to protect themselves from investigative reporters. Something that should have been addressed in the language of the law if it were above board. " But your opinion was wrong. The privacy laws were passed based on other privacy laws, remember privacy law concepts started in the 1800s as I stated before. So your 'opinion' is without merit. In other words, holds no water, doesn't make sense. "Now, I am through with you and your nonsense until you are ready to conduct yourself as an adult and stop trying my patience." Nonsense? Old man, your whole premise and logic is nothing but a bunch of nonsene. Where in your rherotic did you at least make one bit of sense? Prime example: "Any law that *CAN IN ANY WAY* protect the corrupt, is indeed a corrupt law." Care to carry this on? I'm starting to think you like to keep embarassing yourself.
The Zero Identity Member	Sun Sep 27 01:54:08 And I care not for the numerous mistakes in my post, I'm tired, just got home and about to sleep. Even my numerous types and gibberish still make more sense than your rhetoric.
Forwyn Member	Sun Sep 27 01:57:16 As has been said before, ACORN is not an entirely private entity. It is publicly funded, and loses some of its privacy as a result of that. Further, these workers were at their publicly funded jobs, not in their private homes.
CrownRoyal Member	Sun Sep 27 02:00:28 "Further, these workers were at their publicly funded jobs" Link? What acorn jobs were publically funded?
Forwyn Member	Sun Sep 27 02:03:04 Basic logic implies that if a portion of ACORN revenue comes from source A, a portion of money directed to expenditures has also originated from source A. If you need a link for that, you're a moron.
CrownRoyal Member	Sun Sep 27 02:07:10 Really? Then I guess same applies fotr pretty much every corporation in US that get a govt penny. Think GE, Boeing, Lockheed, Halliburton. Nobody is entirely "private entity" anymore. Doesn't matter if you got a specific amount to do a specific task. Every job is a publically funded job as long as a portion of company's revenues came from the feds. Basic logic, eh?
Forwyn Member	Sun Sep 27 02:14:08 Pretty much, to an extent - as I said. I wouldn't be shouting for the hanging of a reporter if they recorded some Boeing Tech, at his workplace, admitting they knowingly used faulty parts on F-35s.
Forwyn Member	Sun Sep 27 02:16:11 Anyways, I'm a little confused as to what you mean by "Nobody is entirely "private entity" anymore." Are you implying that every business and non-profit organization receives public funding?
CrownRoyal Member	Sun Sep 27 02:16:24 "Pretty much, to an extent - as I said." To what extent? What rules apply or don't apply to any company that receives even a dollar from the taxpayers?
Forwyn Member	Sun Sep 27 02:19:18 Well, lets say Microsoft receives funding to develop a new OS for government use. That funding goes to employees, new research, equipment, etc etc, in a certain division. That would not suddenly entitle people to start running around the XBOX division acting like its public property.
CrownRoyal Member	Sun Sep 27 02:19:40 "Anyways, I'm a little confused as to what you mean by "Nobody is entirely "private entity" anymore." What, you stopped applying your famed basic logic? You said, "ACORN is not an entirely private entity. It is publicly funded, and loses some of its privacy as a result of that. " So basic logic says that every other US company that receives govt maney also should lose some of its privacy. Logic. "Are you implying that every business and non-profit organization receives public funding? " The list in a tens of thousands.
Forwyn Member	Sun Sep 27 02:21:37 "What, you stopped applying your famed basic logic? You said, "ACORN is not an entirely private entity. It is publicly funded, and loses some of its privacy as a result of that. " So basic logic says that every other US company that receives govt maney also should lose some of its privacy. Logic." Yes, and not every company receives govt money. "The list in a tens of thousands." Sounds like a bit of a hyperbole.
CrownRoyal Member	Sun Sep 27 02:23:11 That funding goes to employees, new research, equipment, etc etc, in a certain division. That would not suddenly entitle people to start running around the XBOX division acting like its public property." ROFL. That is why I specifically asked you logical ass, "what acorn jobs were government funded?" And a link. So lets see if we can apply your logic here. "Basic logic implies that if a portion of Microsoft revenue comes from source A, a portion of money directed to expenditures has also originated from source A. If you need a link for that, you're a moron." "That would not suddenly entitle people to start running around the XBOX division acting like its public property. " Not public property, don't be silly. They would just lose some privacy.
CrownRoyal Member	Sun Sep 27 02:29:20 It is good that you differentiate between the XBox division and Microsoft. Because, as far as I understood, the only federal money that Acorn was going to compete for from the bailout bill, would go to ACORN Housing, a division.
CrownRoyal Member	Sun Sep 27 02:34:06 http://www.contractormisconduct.org/ This is the list of companies with histories of misconduct such as contract fraud and environmental, ethics, and labor violations. All government contractors. Now this is just a Top 100. See if you recognize the names. I guess all of them must be defunded and most definitely they all should "lose some of their privacy".
Forwyn Member	Sun Sep 27 02:34:14 "A recent investigation by the office of Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) â?? another vocal ACORN critic â?? concluded that the organization had gotten at least $53 million from federal agencies since 1994. GOP aides said that total â??does not count the untold millions more that ACORN has received indirectly through state and local agencies that receive federal block grants.â?? Brian Kettenring, an ACORN spokesman, said that the lionâ??s share of the federal money went to the ACORN Housing Corp. for its work on first-time home buyer counseling and, more recently, foreclosure prevention." http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090916/pl_politico/27208 "The action came as the group is suffering from bad publicity after a duo of conservative activists posing as a prostitute and her pimp released hidden-camera videos in which ACORN employees in Baltimore gave advice on house-buying and how to account on tax forms for the woman's income." http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/14/senate-votes-cut-acorn-housing-funding/ Okay, let me rephrase for you, since you're nitpicking: "As has been said before, ACORN is not an entirely private entity. *Its housing division* is publicly funded, and loses some of its privacy as a result of that. Further, these workers were at their publicly funded jobs, not in their private homes."
Forwyn Member	Sun Sep 27 02:36:41 "I guess all of them must be defunded and most definitely they all should "lose some of their privacy"." You realize that all I've said from the beginning is that, basically, companies and organizations shouldn't receive extended protection from public inquiries? Stop putting words in my mouth, thanks.
CrownRoyal Member	Sun Sep 27 02:38:52 Well, this is at least coherent. Thats not me nitpicking, btw. I simply asked you for the link because most of acorn jobs are not government funded. If you'd just acknowledge that, instead of applying your "logic" we wouldn't waste time here. Anyway, what kind of privacy should all these companies lose as a result of govt funding?
CrownRoyal Member	Sun Sep 27 02:41:08 "Stop putting words in my mouth, thanks. " You think that ACORN should still receive govt money? "basically, companies and organizations shouldn't receive extended protection from public inquiries? " Requiring consent before taping is an "extended protection"?
Forwyn Member	Sun Sep 27 02:52:52 If someone conducts an interview with an employee and records evidence of lawful wrongdoing, they should be able to publish it without fear of prosecution. i.e. AfrikaKorp is a food company, and receives funding to conduct food-related charities. Janice can publish material regarding AfrikaKorp using child organs to produce their nutritious frozen-dinners. Janice discovers no evidence of wrongdoing, but publishes material regarding a new secret production technique that AfrikaKorp has yet to unveil. Janice does not have the right to reveal this technique without their permission, hurting the company's future.
CrownRoyal Member	Sun Sep 27 02:56:33 If someone conducts an interview with an employee and records evidence of lawful wrongdoing, they should be able to publish it without fear of prosecution. " So, it only one law that you feel can be broken? In our case it is reportedly Maryland Law, Annotated Code of Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article 10-402, which requires two party consent. All the companies that recieve govt funding (the specific division) can be filmed, wiretapped and their emails can be tampered with, without their consent. Any other laws?
CrownRoyal Member	Sun Sep 27 02:58:38 "Janice discovers no evidence of wrongdoing" I like it. Janice is now a judge too? What if she feels she discovered an evidence of wrongdoing, lets say at Boeing, but then it turns out to be nothing?
Hot Rod Member	Sun Sep 27 07:16:02 CR - "Are you implying that every business and non-profit organization receives public funding? " The list in a tens of thousands. You can add Libya to that list. FOX said this morning that Obama is giving a few million dollars to the Libyan government.
charper Member	Sun Sep 27 07:25:08 I can just see Rods hysterics if one of his filthier flame fests were for some reason published in the media. "Those words *ARE MY PROPERTY* NOONE *Has* The Right To STEAL MY WORDS, *WITHOUT EVEN ASKING MY PERMISSION, YOU FUCKING LIBERALS, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA"
CrownRoyal Member	Sun Sep 27 07:39:26 "You can add Libya to that list." *Adds Lybia to the list of business and non-profit organizations receives public funding. For Rod, who is retarded like that.
Hot Rod Member	Sun Sep 27 07:58:39 TIZZI, what you lose track of or are too fucking stupid to understand is I have merely expressed my opinion. As far as I am concerned you can take your opinion of my opinion and shove it so far up your ass it gags you. I had told Rugian in his repost of my "gag order thread" I would address *his* concerns if he made another thread. Prior to my gag order thread I had posted to this one with what I thought was a fair representation of my position. See Fri Sep 25 09:19:05. Right after I posted that I had to get ready to leave for the day as I do *every Friday* to have lunch and do my shopping. Before I returned you were saying vile things about me and I really had no desire to engage you further. But you kept twisting my position into something you wanted it to be and not what I actually said so I came back to the "conversation." You kept bellowing about me running away from "the other thread." The only other thread about this subject is the one created by Peter Walsh and I was in that one until a nonsense post by, what I assume was, another of your multi's. There was no other thread that I am aware of. Rugian never created another thread. So what I have been doing in this thread, rather foolishly I might add, is trying to defend my position from a fucking idiot that disagrees with my opinion. So fucking what? I disagree with your opinion and I think yours is incredibly simplistic with no rational basis whatsoever. A pig in slop could easily come up with a better position than yours. So go piss up a rope. I've had it with you and your simple mindedness.
hoER Member	Sun Sep 27 08:01:47 Awwwwww poor pretend victim...
Hot Rod Member	Sun Sep 27 08:52:02 Go fuck a donut.
NeverWoods Member	Sun Sep 27 08:55:11 Why would anyone fuck a donut? Would you prefer to fuck a donut HR?
Leah Horchler Member	Sun Sep 27 08:59:24 Hot Rod does occassionally fuck jelly donuts. Has to be strawberry jelly though. He thinks it accurately simulates a young Davey.
Hot Rod Member	Sun Sep 27 09:17:24 Liberals fuck donuts, Real Men make themselves a liver sandwich. So go fuck a donut.
The Zero Identity Member	Sun Sep 27 10:55:45 And still you fail to make the connection. It's like you have some mental blockage that is preventing you from seeing what was actually said or you be being too stubborn as fuck to realize that from your gag order thread that was spammed and you accused Rugian et al of hijacking to come back to THIS thread to continue the discussion about privacy laws. But no, you want to give some long-winded account about you taking your lunchbreak, shopping time, or whatever that does not apply. The problem with your 'opinion' was that it is WRONG. What I am presenting, hell not even gotten into the details of it yet, because you keep going off on tangents that do not relate to the real issue or topic of debate, are FACTS in regards to why privacy laws became a concept. But no, you are going to make an idiotic statement such as: "Any law that *CAN IN ANY WAY* protect the corrupt, is indeed a corrupt law." Which has to be one of the most idiotic statements I've heard in a while because one, you must think that all laws are corrupt and two, you were championing such laws when it came to white house email lists and archiving social sites that were property of the white house, but now it's a different story because the privacy laws are used against some journalist you hold as heros. Now you're accusing me of twisting your position. I haven't twisted your opinion. I've quoted you through this fucking thread, how in the hell am I twisting what you have said, how am I twisting your position when I am asking you for clarification that your disregarding as you continously go off on tangets about your routine on fridays, or talking about what thread that exists, but doesn't 'exist', but it exists, or about what tag is being used, forgoing the real topic of dicussion because in reality you have no defense for what you have said. You're such a hypocrite on the utmost level.
ahmadinejacket Member	Sun Sep 27 11:09:42 Why does HR always play the victim? Though he did complete stage 4 and 5 quite clearly.
hoER Member	Sun Sep 27 12:02:56 " But no, you are going to make an idiotic statement such as: "Any law that *CAN IN ANY WAY* protect the corrupt, is indeed a corrupt law." The state not being allowed to smash your door in and search your house without a warrant protects corrupt people. Thats a corrupt law? Dear God...is this what Libertarians believe is freedom from the all intrusive government? Libertarians are actually dictatorial fascists?
hoER Member	Sun Sep 27 12:04:40 " But no, you are going to make an idiotic statement such as: "Any law that *CAN IN ANY WAY* protect the corrupt, is indeed a corrupt law." The state not being allowed to smash your door in and search your house without a warrant protects corrupt people. Thats a corrupt law? Dear God...is this what Libertarians believe is freedom from the all intrusive government? Libertarians are actually dictatorial fascists?
Hot Rod Member	Sun Sep 27 14:22:56 TIZZI - The problem with your 'opinion' was that it is WRONG. For the last time, "As far as I am concerned you can take your opinion of my opinion and shove it so far up your ass it gags you." I cannot make it any clearer than that. ,,!,,
The Zero Identity Member	Sun Sep 27 14:47:33 The fact remains, you're still wrong.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: