- How to run a prostitution business
- Tax advice on that business
- How to keep minor prostitutes shipped in from San Salvidor a secret
- How to work the tax code around the child prostitutes
- Advice on how to train those child prostitutes
For the political savvy on both the left and the right, the videos featured here are not at all surprising. For those on the left, they are of no consequence, just part and parcel to winning elections. For those on the right the videos are proof of two things. One, man is corrupt and should be monitored. Two, the media who's job it is to monitor are beholden more to their ideology than ferreting out the corruption of those with who's ideology they agree.
Leftist news agencies will eventually be forced to report on this due to the blogosphere and am radio, but it will be couched in questions of the legality of the filming, or perhaps the fact that conservative agencies have been guilty of similar activities, or some other mitigating circumstance with the intent of covering for their leader. Then as far as that media is concerned, it will become instant history, and it will be time to "move on".
Even though tax supported Acorn was the gestation organization for our current president, these videos will eventually find themselves in the trash Bin with all the other revelations about our illustrious leader as we simultaneously beg him, and bestow upon him the ability, to save us from reaping the harvest of our years of sowing to the wind.
The Other Video Is Here at Biggovernment.com. There are also transcripts.
Posts
24 comments:
What a complete outrage!
Unless you're from the left.
Then it's just business as usual...and perfectly fine.
ACORN was just trying to bring "HOPE" to some prostitutes and pimps.
They were just trying to "CHANGE" some facts as to make sure these would-be criminals and tax evaders were not caught.
They are just community organizers like our President was.
Cut them a bit of slack. They were going to damage this country far less than their Hero Oblama is doing.
Steve
So what are you saying? Hope is relative? :)
Justin told me about this last night - my mouth is still agape...
Dan said...
For those on the left, they are of no consequence, just part and parcel to winning elections.
Joe said...
What a complete outrage! Unless you're from the Left...
It is always fun to demonize the "Other Side" and pretend that they are all monsters who only enjoy destroying things, cheating, lying, etc. The truth, of course, is different than demonizations.
If we are merely wanting to join with friends and make fun of "the other side," that's one thing. Blowing off steam with like-minded folk can be fun.
But it's not an especially helpful way to deal with those with whom we disagree.
In truth, ACORN fired these workers for taking actions that aren't part of ACORN ideals. In truth, "the Left" are folk like me who are just interested in doing the right thing, living moral lives, helping the needy and trying to get by the best we can.
In truth, many of us are loving parents, grandparents and children, church-goers, pastors, deacons, sunday school teachers, hard-working employees and good community citizens. We don't endorse illegal activity, nor cheating nor lying.
That a few on the so-called Left have misbehaved is no more indication that all on "the Left" are corrupt and immoral any more than when some on the so-called Right are corrupt and immoral means that ALL those on the Right are immoral and corrupt.
After all, the reality that more politicians caught in illegal or immoral shenanigans in the last decades have been Republican or conservative does not make me think that ALL the GOP is immoral or criminal.
Yes?
"After all, the reality that more politicians caught in illegal or immoral shenanigans in the last decades have been Republican or conservative does not make me think that ALL the GOP is immoral or criminal."
How could you possibly know this to be the truth?
And could you define for me please what you mean by the word immoral?
And could you define for me please what you mean by the word immoral?
Just the normal definition: Not moral. "Conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles."
Why?
Oh, here's another list of GOP corruption.
Please again, would you define what you meant by the word morality.
Do I suspect differently?
I do suspect differently in spite of the numbers you cite. But even if my suspicions are wrong it is irrelevant, I still support and believe in conservative ideals.
And I'm not at all saying you shouldn't. In fact, although it may surprise you, I support and believe in conservative ideals. Many of them.
I certainly support the notion that we should watch out for one another, be a community for one another, help the needy, enable individuals to live up to their potential. I believe in personal and societal responsibility. I believe in personal piety or goodness. I believe in strong families and communities. I believe in developing strong local economies. I believe in conserving our natural resources. Wouldn't you agree that these are all conservative ideals?
So, please, by all means, hold on to and support the best of conservative ideals. I do.
All I was saying was that it is not helpful to demonize the "Others." To suggest that ACORN or the Dems or liberals or "the gays" are evil and intent on only evil corrupt ways is a way of telling a falsehood.
As I already stated, we on the so-called Left are seeking the good, the moral, the just, the right. We are loving parents and spouses. In my community, we are faithful Christians, sunday school teachers, deacons, preachers, prophets and nursery workers. We are not so different than you. As you can see, I support many conservative ideals (it is for this reason, I tend to think that labels "conservative" and "liberal" are not always very helpful).
So, if you're just joking around blowing off steam by cracking on the "Others," well, I suppose there is a time for that (probably not so much in public fora, though). But if you wish to have serious, adult conversations, then we have to set aside the name-calling and demonizations and work from the point where people actually are, not negative ugly stereotypes.
"As I already stated, we on the so-called Left are seeking the good, the moral, the just, the right."
I guess it just comes down to the question of what is "good, moral just and right". On that, I'm sure we don't agree.
Thanks for dropping by Dan. You are welcome back if you're interested in an honest and open dialog. I actually desire to be challenged believe it or not, lest I remain in my current state of ignorance.
But if it is your intention to simply smear those with whom you disagree with your little underhanded jabs, seething with hatred, while making yourself out to be just an average neutral and agreeable little ole commenter, then I'm sure there are other blogs that would be more than willing to provide you with a venue for that addiction.
Dan, thank you for the invitation. As to your concern, all you have to do is say to me, "Dan, that sounds like a smear full of hatred" and I can correct myself or clarify.
Having said that, can you see how it looks for this average guy (and I am a pretty average guy, I suspect, in most respects - Christian for 36 years, now, husband to one wife for nearly 25 years, father to two beautiful children, employed, relatively hard-working, etc) and many others for you to say that you're concerned about people posting "smears" and "underhanded jabs" and "seething with hatred," following a post that suggests that "liberals" and even ACORN and other American citizens and fellow Christians don't care about corruption?
I don't know ACORN at all, but I DO know community organizers and I have never met a corrupt one or one who was not concerned about moral righteousness or justice. I have seen no evidence that ACORN is corrupt, just because some of its employees have been caught misbehaving.
For some of us out here, your comments here at least sound like they're seething with hatred towards liberals and like you're taking underhanded jabs at "Leftists."
You said, after all, "For those on the Left, they are of no consequence, just part and parcel to winning elections..." That sounds like you're saying that all "those on the Left" care about are elections and that they don't care about righteousness or morality. IS that what you're saying?
How is that NOT a jab and seething with hatred?
That was my only point in commenting on this post. I, just like you, am incredibly concerned about people posting jabs that seethe with hatred and that smear others. If what you posted was not a smear, a jab and hateful, what was it?
Dan said...
I guess it just comes down to the question of what is "good, moral just and right". On that, I'm sure we don't agree.
Oh, I expect that we agree MUCH more than we disagree. I suspect that you and I agree...
1. In being faithful to your spouse
2. In being a good citizen
3. In helping those in need
4. In trying to find ways to decrease crime
5. In trying to find ways to see people gainfully employed
6. In reading the Bible and applying it to our lives
7. In being a good parent, one who takes time to be with your children, read them stories, teach them values such as love, patience, kindness, goodness, self-control
8. In playing with and teaching other children (like at our churches or in our neighborhoods)
9. In being charitable
10. In hard work...
Stop me if I reach a point where you disagree with me...
11. In prayer
12. In being truthful
13. In not stealing or cheating
14. That we ought to have integrity
15. That we ought to expect our leaders to act with integrity...
You get the idea. I'd expect that I could list 100 values and ideals that I believe in and you'd only disagree with a few.
We both don't care much for abortion, BUT I don't want to outlaw it and I suspect you do. We disagree on that point.
I'm sure we both don't like war and want to see it avoided. I just want to see us do even more to avoid it AND YET at the same time work against unjust situations and terrorism - I just think we can better address these problems in ways other than war. You might disagree, I don't know.
I want to decriminalize drug abuse. I don't smoke or drink alcohol and hardly even take medicine, but I think our "war on drugs" is a perfect example of a bad use of Big Gov't. You might disagree with me on that. Even there, though, my goal would be to decrease drug abuse, I just don't think criminalizing it is an effective way to do so.
You get the idea. I suspect we agree MUCH more on moral ideals than we disagree.
On your second comment
That was much better.
You are correct in our disagreement on the murder of the unborn except that, as you elude, I desire that the laws be consistent with justice.
I do have a point of contention with your list that involves a circular argument. It is point number 2. You are clarifying what is meant by "good" by using the word good as in "good citizen". I'd be willing to bet that those people fired from ACORN would not agree to an accusation that they were not being good citizens.
Helping those in need is a also somewhat nebulous. We could be miles apart on that one too. The same is true on 4,5,6, and 9.
But in the end I suspect that all these will end up at the door step of the question: "What is the true nature of man?" Is he basically good or bad? I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on that.
"What is the true nature of man?" Is he basically good or bad? I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on that.
I agree with the Bible.
I agree that, as Genesis tells us, we are created in the image of God.
I agree that, as Hebrews tells us, we are created a little lower than the angels.
I agree that, as the Bible tells us several places, we are sinners in need of salvation.
At times, I agree with Paul, that the good we want to do, we don't do way too often.
I agree with Paul that we have a sinful nature.
I agree with Paul that we can be set free from our sinful nature in Christ ("The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace" and "through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.")
I agree with Jesus that we are called to be Perfect, as God is Perfect and with Peter who said we are expected to be Holy, as God is Holy ("Therefore, prepare your minds for action; be self-controlled; set your hope fully on the grace to be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed. As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: "Be holy, because I am holy.")
I agree with Jesus that blessed are the poor, the meek, the peacemakers, those who follow after Him.
The Bible has an awful lot to say about the nature of humanity and I agree with all of it, even when it seems contradictory. We ARE sinners who often ARE incapable of doing anything right.
AND YET, we are Sons and Daughters of God, created in God's image to be perfect, as God is perfect. We are blessed by and beloved by God.
We fail and sin and yet we can, by God's grace, follow in Christ's steps and overcome sin.
So, my direct answer to your question: Are we basically good or bad? is yes, we are basically good and bad. We are sinners. We are called to be perfect and enabled by God's grace to be perfect and to be holy (understanding what "perfect" and "holy" rightly mean, of course - we won't be perfect in the sense of "without error," but we can, by God's grace, be perfect like a Perfect Dozen, perfectly what we are called to be in Christ).
Does that help?
So, to my questions, IS it the case that we probably agree more than we disagree on moral issues? Other than your caveats, don't we agree on most points?
Also, I am wondering, do you see how it sounds hateful and like jabs and smears to suggest that all liberals don't care about corruption? Is it the case that you were just stereotyping and blowing off steam, not really meaning what you said - that you think that "those on the left" are unconcerned about corruption and morality?
No I wasn't just blowing off steam. I am very convinced that for the left these activities are of no consequence.
"A" cannot be both "A" and not "A" at the same time. That makes your response "yes" irrational. This is unfortunate because I contend that this is the point, or at least very near it, upon which this discussion hinges.
But I am what you would consider "the Left" and yet I am not immoral especially, nor am I unconcerned about corruption.
So, why would you make a sweeping statement that isn't true? Or are you saying that I DO like corruption and that I AM immoral, etc?
Are you just saying SOME SEGMENTS of the Left are unconcerned about corruption? If so, you are certainly correct, just as some segment of the Right is unconcerned about corruption. But it simply isn't true to say that either ALL of the Left or ALL of the Right are unconcerned about corruption, isn't that true?
"A" cannot be both "A" and not "A" at the same time. That makes your response "yes" irrational. This is unfortunate because I contend that this is the point, or at least very near it, upon which this discussion hinges.
Do you disagree with the Bible, that we were made to follow in Christ's steps? That we are made in God' image? That we are to, by God's grace, be holy, as God is holy?
Humanity is certainly both good and bad at the same time (or off and on, if you prefer). You are not wholly bad all the time, are you, Dan? I don't think you are.
Are your children wholly bad all the time (or nephews or nieces or other family, if you don't have children)? No, they are not.
My beloved son, in whom I am well pleased, can be gracious and loving and full of God's Spirit as evidenced by the fruit of the Spirit at times. My daughter can be the sweetest child of God at times.
Then there are other times.
Humanity is both good and bad. The evidence is all around you, even in your own life. Do you mean something other than what we normally mean by Good and Bad?
Certainly we all have a sinful nature all the time, but that does not mean that we are bad all the time.
Could you elaborate?
How a person approaches mankind and himself, as either basically good or basically bad, will determine how he approaches everything else. When I contemplate a Holy and Righteous God; when I pray and worship and consider his Holy Word, I have no recourse but to conclude that I am in fact sinful. It is not as if I am a basically good person who sinned, but rather that I am sin. As I approach God and consider who I am at the core, I have to agree with God that all my righteousness is as filthy rags before him. But it is from this perspective Jesus Christ and him crucified becomes glorious, and central. The torture that Jesus received on the cross was a picture of God’s response to me, Danny. The ugliness displayed on the cross is my ugliness, and of God’s response to who I am. For this reason it is no wonder that Paul says that the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing.
So what is good and moral? I can judge what is good and moral by what I think should be good and moral, or by what God has revealed to us in his Word. But if I approached His Word from a perspective outside of what God has shown to us to be his response to us as carried out on Jesus in our behalf, then I would not be able to trust my conclusions about His Revelation to us. I may in fact not like what God has to say about mankind, and me, and be prone to twisting what he said to fit that of my own fallen view of mankind, and myself. This would put me in jeopardy of judging God according to my standard rather than judging myself according to His standard and thereby calling good what God calls evil, or evil what God calls good.
It is at this point that the words good and evil become subjective and meaningless resulting in Babylonian like confusion. This is why I need to know the standard by which people judge when they make claims that something, or someone, is good or bad, moral or immoral. Is it so because they think so, or because God thinks so?
When I ask you what you meant by “immoral” the rationale of your answer was consistent with the rationale of your answer concerning man’s basic goodness. You defined immoral as: "Conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles". Generally or traditionally held moral principles are different for different people both from different cultures and within cultures and so what is right for one person is not right for another. So an action can be, at the same time, moral and immoral. This is irrational. Such a definition is evidence of a standard based on what man thinks ought to be moral according to his own fallen point of view, as opposed to what God says is moral.
" So, why would you make a sweeping statement that isn't true? Or are you saying that I DO like corruption and that I AM immoral, etc.
I have to say that this made me chuckle. I read it shortly after hearing Jimmy Carter say that those who oppose Obama's health care do so because he is Black and they are racist. That made me chuckle too, even though I believe that there are people who actually believe it to be true, even if Carter doesn't.
I'm sorry that you take that on yourself. Perhaps I should, in the future, write Dan Trabue in stead of "the left", then you would have a legitimate complaint. But then again, my posts would make no sense to those who understand the necessity of generalities.
The correct way to use generalities, it seems to this sinner, is to say, "Too many on the Left think..."
When one says, "The Left thinks..." using standard English guidelines, what that means is that ALL THOSE on the Left. That is how word usage works.
If you only mean that smaller segment of the Left that does not care about corruption, then reference THOSE people. For you to say, "The Left," though, is to invite others to ignore you as a crackpot, because it is obviously true that "The Left" VERY OFTEN cares about corruption.
Did you see how the Left opposed Bush's actions in Iraq and with torture because we suspected corruption? Did you see how we responded to Reagan and his corrupt support of terrorists/thugs in Iraq and in Nicaragua? It is abundantly obvious to all reasonable people that many if not most folks on the Left are quite concerned about corruption.
So, when you argue "the Left...," you have undone your case before you even start. If you don't care that you come off as a person blindly following partisan lines contrary to the Truth, then you, yourself, come across as corrupt - the very thing you wish to condemn.
So, just one man's humble opinion, I'd suggest you say what you mean and not make stereotypes. It's exactly that sort of behavior that will get you ignored and considered to be just another sinful hypocrite.
Not unlike me, in some cases.
Dan said...
Such a definition is evidence of a standard based on what man thinks ought to be moral according to his own fallen point of view, as opposed to what God says is moral.
Well, THIS man bases his morality on what God's Word says, along with God's Law written upon our hearts, along with tradition, along with the revelation of God's Spirit in our lives, along with our God-given reasoning, along with God revealed through creation. Me and all my "liberal" faith community.
Do you think I am wrong to do so?
And, as a result of seeking God's will thusly, I am opposed to corruption.
Am I wrong to be thusly opposed to corruption? How about my whole church (which you would call "liberal")?
Are you mistaken then, that "the Left" does not care about corruption?
Is it wrong of you (ie, morally incorrect) to make such a false generalization?
Post a Comment