OK, here's what I don't understand. Since congress voted to take away federal funding to ACORN

[madmom]

because of some bad info from a couple employees, WHY are they still giving federal money to the likes of blackwater and haliburton when we know what they did was by far much worse than giving out bad advice. Haliburton and blackwater employees were/are on trial for murdering people,they get new contracts. ACORN gives erroneous advice, they lose everything. How very fitting.

[Captain Hilts]

1. GOOD question. nt

[EmeraldCityGrl]

2. Why doesn't to big to fail apply to ACORN?

[madrchsod]

6. because they are not "big enough to fail" ?

[get the red out]

3. Because Republicans being crooks is totally acceptable?

Afterall, Blackwater is such a "religious" company.

[madrchsod]

4. death and destruction is a good

helping the poor is bad.

we still are a primitive nation.

[Hamlette]

5. Because dems are rational and republicans are not. n/t

[jonnyblitz]

7. It seems like the republicans are still running things. nt

[samsingh]

8. good point

[paulsby]

9. lol. what rubbish

they are defunding because of... wait for it "bad info from a couple of employees"

first of all, it was more than a couple.

second of all, giving "info" to people about how to evade taxes on child sex trafficking, how to conceal the true nature of your business, and how to facilitate its success, in exploiting underage girls is not giving "bad info"

puhleez.

[madmom]

10. But killing innocent people is ok and we can fund that till hell freezes over right?....

Look I'm not saying these people were right in what they did, but the child sex trafficking was fake and nobody got hurt. The killings are/were real and lots of people did and still are getting hurt. So if one gets defunded for giving illegal advice to someone, who it turns out was fake, don't you think the ones who are for real (they are really raping and murdering people) should be defunded also? The double standard is disgusting.

[paulsby]

12. nice strawman.

i never said killing innocents is "ok" (depends on the circs, and in the case of blackwater, etc clearly they have done bad things) but that's not the point. the point is in order to set up your argument, you described it as "giving bad info"

which is complete horseshit.

so, the rest of your argument FAILS if your premise is unsound

analytical reasoning 101

if you can't be honest enbough to accurately describe what the (more than 2) ACORN employees did (and it wasn't merely providing "bad info") then you lose credibiity and the argument fails

[madmom]

14. So who was it that got hurt here. THERE WERE NO GIRLS! THEY WERE FAKE! so

what did the ACORN people do beside give bad info, on how to skirt tax laws. They were wrong but what they did does not merit the whole of the corp being defunded. They may have not known there were no girls but the congress that defunded them knows it was all a set-up and it is nothing more than tax fraud, which a lot of people do every day, and brag about it.
I did not say 2, I may have said a couple but that is a loose interpretation.

[paulsby]

15. again

it's dishonest o say it;'s merely bad info

i suggest again that you need to understand the concept of MENS REA.

the issue isn't whether they did harm. in ANY sting, no harm is done, because the situation is fake. but the stingee doesn't know that. the issue is INTENT

when i bought guns undercover,a no harm was done. the guns were sold to me, a law enforcement officer. but the seller didn't know that. they thought they were selling to a coke dealer.

but they were still guilty of weapons trafficking.

i wasn;t a coke dealer.

it was not MERELY tax fraud. it was an ATTEMPT (see: mens rea) to help a child sex trafficker evade taxes (and the law) and to facilitate the business in continuing their trade.

that's the honest assessment. you can make an argument that such behavior does not warrant defunding (it was isolated, bla bla) and that would be an honest argument. if you cannot accurately describe what they actually did, you fail

[Freddie Stubbs]

11. Perhaps the government is having trouble finding other companies who can do what these ones do

[mariawr]

13. That's not the point. nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. But it may be the reality of the situation

Do you have a better explanation for why neither the Democratic Congress nor President Obama has moved to cut off funding?

[grahamhgreen]

16. It's quite the double standard. ONLY Acorn is held accountable for what some of thei rindividuals f

While all other organizations get to use the few bad apples defense. Including congress.

[Stinky The Clown]

17. The only black in Blackwater is the name

Yes, that's hyperbole.

ACORN's employees' bad advice isn't the issue. ACORN is a surrogate for Obama.

[Bluerthanblue]

18. I heard on NPR today that federal funding only makes up 2% of ACORN

funding.

That doesn't change the hypocrisy your question puts a spotlight on- , but if it's true, then the federal funding isn't all that critical to them.

:shrug: