1. A blog does not really constitute news. Unless, of course, its a liberal blog, then, apparently, it is Gospel.
2. You are not referring to the _actual_ videos, rather ones that were produced with commentary/voiceovers. The snippets of videos I have seen had no voiceovers. 3. Jon Stewart asks why no one else reported on this as well. http://snurl.com/rwwoy (Just because it is on Fox does not mean it is not news). 4. Of course you think its a waste if time, it sheds a poor light on your beloved ACORN. On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: > > OK. I'll bite and ask the question. Why would I not look at the stuff on a > conservative blog? That is where the idiotic stuff in question *is* > according to the authority on idiotic stuff, Fox News. If the full videos > are posted somewhere, fine. Go watch them as you don't seem to have done so. > I say it's a waste of time. Why would they edit the dirt *out*? > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> I cannot tell you how funny I find it that you are trying to defend >> your position about the videos being edited by what you found on a >> conservative blog. >> >> Those are not the videos we are talking about. We are talking about >> the _real_ ones. >> >> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > of course they are edited; compare the transcripts to the videos. Look at >> > the videos! Where did the voiceover and editorial text come from? >> > >> > Possibly they are not doctored, but I did not see a story when I was >> looking >> > around last night that ACORN had said so. However, since you started >> saying >> > that I have been workng from the assumption that this is true, though I >> > personally am not convinced yet. >> > >> > Have *you* looked at these videos at all? In Washington she says she's >> > trying to get these girls away from an abusive pimp. In Brooklyn she >> talks >> > about other working girls but does not say they are underage. The one in >> San >> > Bernardino is already discredited so I did not bother with that. If there >> is >> > a fifth video it was not up on the BigGovernment side yesterday evening. >> > >> > On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 7:05 AM, Bruce Sorge <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> Have you seen all five videos yet? The ones that ACORN have admitted are >> >> NOT edited? There is more to them than just which tax table to use. >> >> >> >> Dana wrote: >> >> > haven't found a code of ethics yet, but, an incidental find -- if you >> >> start >> >> > from ok this person has income she has to report and she is not an >> >> employee, >> >> > yet she performs services for her income, then she *is* a business. >> Look >> >> at >> >> > http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040sc.pdf . They are making a big >> deal >> >> out >> >> > of the tax preparer trying to determine which code from the table >> >> starting >> >> > on C-9 they should use. I mean, Sam, Bruce, which one would *you* use? >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:304357 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
