You are so determined to see things through the lens of your own ideas. It is hard to tell what they were thinking. (and note that when it comes to what we have seen so far, we are down to a single encounter in which underage girls acting as prostitutes are mentioned) One of the two workers in Baltimore was quite emphatic in saying that those girls need to go to school. They aren't helping that couple house sex slaves; based on the information they are given (which it was illegal for them to disclose) the couple plans to do this and no assistance from ACORN is requested in doing so.
The discussion about whether they are dependents seems quite amoral but it's legally correct I think. They would be providing more than half of those girls' costs. They would be dependents with an income. And it would also be a bad idea to claim them. But that too makes no sense. If she heard 9600 how does she think this gets paid for? Someone more idealistic (me for instance) might have said the hell with the law, this is human trafficking and it's wrong, and called the police. We don't know that they didn't right now but had they done so.... would it have helped? Maybe they planned to do their own sting at the seminar these two said they wanted to attend. Who knows? The phrase "make it legal" is unfortunate, but what is actually proposed is a way to *report the income* legally. Here is what I do know. I spent a couple of hours *actually looking at the supposed proof* and I find myself incredulous. Those two women in Baltimore don't seem terribly smart, but the story they are being told rings false on several levels. And so does theirs. A two thousand dollar income? That is not going to get you a house. Were they just shining them on or what? Here is what I don't see -- anyone saying yay, let's crash the welfare system and collapse the housing market. Let's get together and import sex workers! Hurray hurray an opportunity to cheat Uncle Sam out of some money does not occur anywhere in that video or transcript either. If you and Sam would care to step back a minute from the selective outrage and the hyperbole you might note that I've already said that firing them was the way to go. You have to, unless they called someone immediately after this and we haven't heard about it yet. From there to sweeping condemnation of an entire group and all its efforts ... well. I know your way is more fun. Don't expect me to take you seriously though. I've spent enough time on this drivel. On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 5:29 AM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I think we are still shading into advice on money laundering tho... and > it's > > hard to know what to make of the discussion on the girls. > > Really? Its hard to know what to make of giving advice on how to > declare sex slaves as dependents? Really? You are not sure where you > stand on that? > > It astounds me the lengths you are going to to defend the actions of > these people. But, then again, they are from ACORN, I guess that gives > them a free pass for just about anything. > > Out of curiosity, where is the line, that if someone from ACORN > crossed it you, would be outraged? Because helping someone house sex > slaves doesn't seem to be there quite yet. > > > -- > Scott Stroz > --------------- > Reality is for those who lack imagination. > > http://xkcd.com/386/ > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:304333 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
