You aren't listening. Again. I am done with talking to you. On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 6:22 AM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I get, I really do. ACORN and its employees can do no wrong...ever. > And, on the occasion when they do happen to do wrong, its OK. ACORN > does so much good they get a free pass. > > Again, if this was a conservative organization doing the same thing, > you would be screaming bloody murder. > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 8:15 AM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I am not defending it, just pointing that it appears to be technically > true. > > And also that it makes no sense. If she thinks her income is AGI is 2,000 > > why is she even thinking about dependents? I don't plan to leap to a > > conclusion here. There is enough of that happening already. But hey, it's > > more fun to point fingers and snipe, I understand. It is also, as I > pointed > > out much earlier in the thread, pointless mental masturbation. > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 6:08 AM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > >> Wow. Just. Wow. > >> > >> You are actually defending the advice that the pimp should declare the > >> underage sex slaves as dependents. > >> > >> I am speechless, truly speechless. > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> > 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:304339 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
