geokstr: But rest assured, we’re learning how to use them too now, and you can anticipate being ridiculed every time you spout that leftist nonsense that conservatives have suffered from your side for decades.

Luckily, we won’t need to… how do you put it… “use them too” on you. While ridicule might be a potent weapon, it doesn’t always need to be employed. Res ipsa.

Seriously, I’d recommend finding a new gimmick. I don’t think you need to continuously cite to Alinsky to justify not being a nice guy. You can do that perfectly well without any assistance.

geokstr: … carpet bombing Wasilla with reporters …

Ummm, Palin went to “puffball” Katie Couric. What result?

Don’t blame us for reality’s fondness for liberalism.

Cheers,

geokstr: Now why did I suspect that you would not accept ANY source I found for you? Why don’t you do some of your own freaking research for a change, instead of just Lewinskying Media Matters to get your “facts”? There were literally millions of hits from google and I just took the first few.

I specifically asked for non-RW sources. There may be millions of hits out there, but the first two that you cited were RW slime machine outlets. Funny that, eh?

Cheers,

Thus for example states must include aliens in their own welfare programs, but congress can exclude them from federal welfare programs and can require states to exclude them from joint ones.

Because it’s established that the Federal EP is less than the EP applicable to the states, the door has been opened and could potentially be widened, and so the possibility is always there to argue in any given case that the federal EP doesn’t require the federal government to do something that the state EP requires the states to do.

geokstr: But rest assured, we’re learning how to use them too now, and you can anticipate being ridiculed every time you spout that leftist nonsense that conservatives have suffered from your side for decades.

No more Mr. Nice Guy.

Somewhere no doubt quite warm, Dick Nixon just wet himself laughing.

Hey, Mark, all you guys should know who Alinsky is.

Oh, I know who he is well enough. I read him when Obama was in elementary school. But I think you vastly underestimate the historical background of today’s liberals/progressives/leftists. Most of them don’t have a clue who Alinsky was and have never read him.

Now why did I suspect that you would not accept ANY source I found for you? Why don’t you do some of your own freaking research for a change, instead of just Lewinskying Media Matters to get your “facts”? There were literally millions of hits from google and I just took the first few.

Plenty of legitimate anaylysis and investigation has been done tying your demi-god to the hard left, but guess what, it’s all had to be done by people you would call “hacks”, simply because they disagree with your far left world view. Very little digging into Obama’s background was done by all those in the sycophant media (i.e., anyone non-FauxSnooze) because they were all too busy writing puff pieces about him and carpet bombing Wasilla with reporters and lawyers to sniff through Palin’s trash cans.

No, Obama could put it in writing, admit to everything under oath, on video, and half of the leftists would deny it anyway, and the other half would blame it on Palin.

Hell, I never knew who he was until earlier last year, when it all came about about how much the O and HRC loved him, and I have lived through and followed politics since the 1960s. But rest assured, we’re learning how to use them too now, and you can anticipate being ridiculed every time you spout that leftist nonsense that conservatives have suffered from your side for decades.

No more Mr. Nice Guy. Now we’re going for the long march back through the institutions on our way to taking them back.

public_defender says:
You forgot two more rules that should apply to Blackwater employees:
1) Don’t rape co-workers;
2) Don’t electrocute US service members in the shower.

Oh, yes, and approval of both Rape of Co-Workers and Electrocution of US Soldiers were of course standard official written company policy, passed by the Board of Directors upon direct orders from Bush/Cheney/Hitler, because it might cost a couple dollars to avoid them out of the trillions they were stealing from the treasury for doing nothing.

And here’s just more of the leftist double standard – “oh it’s OK if anybody on our side does anything, no matter how despicable, sleazy, detestable or dishonorable, because, look, if we go back far enough, we can twist something a rightwinger, or somebody working for a rightwinger, or somebody we can call a rightwinger no matter whether they are or not, did to make it appear bad for you, so we’re totally justified”. Gotta rationalize what you do somehow, I suppose, but if you haven’t got a conscience to begin with, what difference does it make, so why bother?

I will be praying feverishly to the FSM that I never am desperate enough to need your services, with the gift for strong arguments based on reason and logic that you obviously possess. I could probably count on the death sentence for spitting on the sidewalk with such a “public defender” in my corner.

“What’s wrong with enforcing standards of conduct and ethical practice? No wholesale shootings, no bribery, no profiteering.”

You forgot two more rules that should apply to Blackwater employees:

1) Don’t rape co-workers;
2) Don’t electrocute US service members in the shower.

geokstr: On the $800,000:
Obama to amend report on $800,000 in spending: Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
On both the $800,000 and Obama’s long-running close relationship with ACORN:
Acorn Who?: WSJ

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review? OIC. But even for a Richard Mellon-Scaife rag, FWIW, the article doesn’t say what you say it says.

WSJ? John Fund?!?!? Say no more, say no more.

geokstr: On Obama’s role representing ACORN:
Strong, silent type: Chicago Sun-Times
Obama sued on behalf of ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. 

Their lawyer in one case (in which other organisations signed on as well).

You folks are trying the “slime by association and innuendo” with all your might (that’s your modus operandi) … but it really is rather thin gruel.

Cheers,

You don’t know a damn thing. He’s a “scholar” who can’t find anyone to publish his articles other than patently ideological outlets who care more about contributors toeing the party line than about factual accuracy or logic. He can’t be viewed as anything other than a talking points parrot.

It’s amazing, really. I would bet that Alinsky is more commonly read, cited, and followed by right-wingers (conservatives?) than anyone else.

I read left/liberal blogs on a regular basis, and I can’t remember anyone citing to Alinsky. I think he’s reaching Frankfurt School levels of myth.*

*I’ve never heard a liberal younger than I am display the slightest knowledge of the Frankfurt School.

geokstr: You guys have these Rules down so pat now that they must be internalized:

Ha! It’s the Godwin’s law of Volokh. How many comments until geokstr cites Alinsky.

It’s amazing, really. I would bet that Alinsky is more commonly read, cited, and followed by right-wingers (conservatives?) than anyone else.

byomtov says:
Scholar? Why not just admit he’s a right-wing hack?

Yes, we know. Everyone who is the least critical of The Won or leftism is a hack, a homophobe or a racist.

You guys have these Rules down so pat now that they must be internalized:

5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.”

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and ‘frozen.’…

See, the thing is, we’re on to this BS now, so we’re going to call you on it every time.

zuch says:

geokstr: In fact, the Obama campaign called the $800,000++ in payments to ACORN “staging and lighting” until they got caught, when they red-facedly had to amend their reporting. And Obama’s ties to ACORN, both as an instructor and their lawyer, going back to the early 1990’s are quite well documented without relying on any rightwing TV network.

If this is so “well documented”, then can you do so (say, without citing to FauxSnooze or WhirledNutzDaily or other organs of the RW Mighty Wurlitzer)?

Cheers,

On the $800,000:
Obama to amend report on $800,000 in spending: Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

On both the $800,000 and Obama’s long-running close relationship with ACORN:
Acorn Who?: WSJ

On Obama’s role representing ACORN:
Strong, silent type: Chicago Sun-Times

Obama sued on behalf of ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

This is just from the first of millions of hits on google for various combinations of “Obama” and “ACORN” and “campaign” and a few other key words. Maybe if you spent some time actually reading things other than Media Matters, KOS, HuffPo, DU and the other reliably leftist sources, you might know some of this stuff. But I really don’t want your head to explode from the cognitive dissonance sure to result.

You like to parrot the FauxSnooze crap that the other lefties all spout, but guess what? We don’t care what you think of them. The fact that, outside their opinion shows, they are much more relatively balanced does make them seem far to the right given the only comparison available is to the lefties on ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, CNN, NYT, LAT, WaPo, and nearly every one of the slimy liberal sycophantic media we’ve had no choice but to listen to for many decades now. Relative to the slanted garbage conservatives have had to suffer through since the 1960′s, anything to the right of Bernie Sanford must seem like the John Birch Society to hard-care leftists like you and a few others here.

And this leftwing bias has also been heavily documented by annual surveys for decades of anchors, editors, reporters, journalism professors, etc, ad nauseum where they are asked to self-identify who they vote for, what party and philosophy they identify with, who they donate to, etc, etc. No trick or loaded questions, just who did you vote for, donate to, do you consider yourself conservative or liberal, etc. Results show 85-95% tilt to the left in nearly every category, far outside the mainstream.

So spare us the FauxSnooze garbage. Also, the “FauxCheers” ending is getting tiresome as well, because the only time you really mean that is when you are commenting to another lefist.

PeteP: Putz.

I think your Sarcas-O-Meter™ needs some fine tuning.

Cheers,

Your irony detector was recalled.

David Nieporent: And this is irony.

No. This is irony. More here. Matter of fact, you’ll get more actual news there than you ever will on FauxSnooze.

Cheers,

Bwahahaha !!!!! :-)

My lawyer just told me it’s Ok for me to kill you for being so f’ing stupid. I’ll be over to see you later.

Putz.

According to his bio, “His articles have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, Weekly Standard, National Review and Human Events,”

Scholar? Why not just admit he’s a right-wing hack?

You need to watch a bit less of FauxSnooze.

…and…

You misspelled “Dubya maladministration flunkie and apparatchik” (or would that be “crook”?)

…and

This is argumentum ad hominem.

And this is irony.

Commenter: Zuch is just wrong. Breitbart didn’t make any tape, or do any illegal taping. Breitbart just disclosed the contents of the tape, which was made by two activists.

OK, the actual tapers were O’Keefe and Giles. The complaint is against O’Keefe, Giles, and the website Breitbart. Item #11 of the complaint states:

On information and belief, O’Keefe is a contributor to, and employee of Breitbart.com and/or its website biggovernment.com.

I’d note that the cases where there’s been a “First Amendment” exception to distribution prohibitions have involved distributors who did not do the actual illegal taping.

Commenter: In any event, the Supreme Court has never upheld an incredibly broad ban on taping — which is how ACORN is construing the Maryland audiotaping statute.

“[B]road”? How so? And has it ever overturned such?

Cheers,

In any event, the Supreme Court has never upheld an incredibly broad ban on taping — which is how ACORN is construing the Maryland audiotaping statute.

Not Zuch: Breitbart was sued by ACORN for publicizing this scandal — disclosing it…

zuch: the ACORN complaint was not about disclosure but about the illegal taping.

Is Breitbart accused of illegal taping?

geokstr: In fact, the Obama campaign called the $800,000++ in payments to ACORN “staging and lighting” until they got caught, when they red-facedly had to amend their reporting. And Obama’s ties to ACORN, both as an instructor and their lawyer, going back to the early 1990’s are quite well documented without relying on any rightwing TV network.

If this is so “well documented”, then can you do so (say, without citing to FauxSnooze or WhirledNutzDaily or other organs of the RW Mighty Wurlitzer)?

Cheers,

Not Zuch: ACORN was involved in a child prostitution sting. It was caught on video counseling what it believed to be a pimp and an underage prostitute on how to set up a child brothel of immigrant prostitutes, and conceal it from authorities. (The fact that the female participant in the sting wasn’t actually underage doesn’t make ACORN’s motives any less malign).

As I pointed out, Breitbart’s use of a supposed child model in sexually suggestive clothing does not constitute an offence, because said model was of legal age. I don’t disagree that a few counsellors, faced with an unusual and extreme situation for which they almost undoubtedly were not trained, did not do a very good job of it (but as I noted, if you want to criminalise “creative” ways of declaring income and such, you’d have to lock up a substantial fraction of commercial tax preparers). But I’d also note that some other ACORN people were smarter than Breitbart (who got suckered himself; turn-about’s fair play), and the few cases of bad advice in question is not claimed by anyone outside FauxSnooze and RW radio to be “official” ACORN policy or procedure (and AFAIK, the people involved in such have been let go by ACORN).

Not Zuch: Breitbart was sued by ACORN for publicizing this scandal — disclosing it — not for making the audiotape — so the Supreme Court ruling holding that the First Amendment bars liability for disclosure of wrongdoing, even if the audiotape is made in violation of state law, is clearly a shield against liability for Breitbart. The First Amendment clearly protects Breitbart.

I thought I’d linked to this above:

In the complaint, ACORN alleges that the filmmakers entered into the organization’s offices in July with a “hidden camera and microphone” and taped employees Tonja Thompson and Shera Williams. Both employees are listed as plaintiffs on the complaint, filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.

The crux of the lawsuit centers around a Maryland law which makes it illegal to tape someone without their consent – ACORN is alleging O’Keefe and Giles did so. ACORN is asking for $500,000 in damages to be awarded to each of the employees filmed by O’Keefe and Giles, and ACORN itself wants $1 million in damages.

Are some people hard of reading? Or just lazy? Or do they just “know” what the Truth™ is and don’t actually need to check things out?

Not Zuch: As was noted in a comment above, the First Circuit has said that the First Amendment limits those audiotaping laws — specifically, Massachusetts’ wiretapping/audiotaping law. So it’s not true, as Zuch claims, that there is no “‘First Amendment’ exception to illegal wiretapping/recording laws.” True, there is no blanket First Amendment exception. But that is different than saying there is no exception at all.

As I said, the First Amendment doesn’t give an exception against prohibitions against wiretapping. What is protected by the First Amendment is disclosure [Jean is similarly about "disclosure"]. One of the major developments here in this line of cases was the Pentagon Papers case, of course. But as I pointed out, the ACORN complaint was not about disclosure but about the illegal taping.

Cheers,

It is true enough that any attempt to diminish his relationship with the group is probably counterproductive.

A group that provided housing assistance et. al. when not giving tax advice to faux prostitutes that is not worthy of the (to be neutral about it) excitement raised (in fact providing various positives; its Wikipedia page provides some insights in that department, to provide a rough sense of the organization, to add some perspective), particularly vis-a-vis other governmentally funded (in some form) organizations.

Does any organization have a constitutional right to funding.

If Congress funded every group except Republicans that helped the census because Congress was run by the other party would there be no problem, since no organization has a constitutional right to funding?

Suffice to day, this misses the point.

zuch says:

Hans Bader: ACORN is a left-wing group that launched Obama’s career as a community organizer. He has long-standing ties to ACORN, and an ACORN affiliate received received $800,000 from Obama’s campaign. Earlier, a liberal prosecutor (and fervent Obama supporter) threatened to punish the whistleblowers, while turning a blind eye to ACORN’s wrongdoing.

You need to watch a bit less of FauxSnooze.

And you can refute the above statements with something other than calling Fox News a cutesy name you probably copy/pasted off Media Matters?

In fact, the Obama campaign called the $800,000++ in payments to ACORN “staging and lighting” until they got caught, when they red-facedly had to amend their reporting. And Obama’s ties to ACORN, both as an instructor and their lawyer, going back to the early 1990′s are quite well documented without relying on any rightwing TV network.

ACORN was involved in a child prostitution sting. It was caught on video counseling what it believed to be a pimp and an underage prostitute on how to set up a child brothel of immigrant prostitutes, and conceal it from authorities. (The fact that the female participant in the sting wasn’t actually underage doesn’t make ACORN’s motives any less malign).

Breitbart was sued by ACORN for publicizing this scandal — disclosing it — not for making the audiotape — so the Supreme Court ruling holding that the First Amendment bars liability for disclosure of wrongdoing, even if the audiotape is made in violation of state law, is clearly a shield against liability for Breitbart. The First Amendment clearly protects Breitbart.

As was noted in a comment above, the First Circuit has said that the First Amendment limits those audiotaping laws — specifically, Massachusetts’ wiretapping/audiotaping law. So it’s not true, as Zuch claims, that there is no “‘First Amendment’ exception to illegal wiretapping/recording laws.” True, there is no blanket First Amendment exception. But that is different than saying there is no exception at all.

gasman: So, you’re saying they can’t defund the professor (acorn) by writing explicitly ‘no money for you’, but it’s fine to not fund the professor (acorn). Being as the result is exactly the same, no money, and that the constitutional authority for allocating money rests completely with the congress is there really any difference.ACORN has no right to any damn federal funding, so their move is just a way to keep this matter alive and in debate long enough to dig up some dirt or effect some horse trading on individual congressmen until they can get themselves back on the gravy train.

You might not be aware of this, but formalistic niceties matter in ConLaw. Mark Field was pleasant enough to point out actual case law, supra, which is persuasive (although distinguishable, as superskeptic pointed out).

Your argument is similar to this:

Well, the President can suggest legislation to Congress, and Congress then writes it, and the President then signs it. So why not just have the President write the legislation for Congress to pass?

Or….

Legislative vetoes over executive agencies are fine, because Congress delegated the power originally, so why shouldn’t they maintain control over it?

Or….

Look, we all know ACORN did bad things (right?). So Congress could choose to not fund them in the future. Why not make ACORN feel the wrath of Congress by singling them out and permanently banning them from appropriations?

It’s an interesting question. Sometimes form matters greatly.