Ignoring your condescending tone …

The first link is Acorn’s web site. The second is a link within Acorn web site. Third is an image editor for a Mac. Fourth is a National Review article on Acorn. 5-10 are various companies named Acorn.

In short, you don’t have any court document links at hand that you stated gave legitimacy to your specific unsupported claims.

If you are seeing different results, that might be because Google has profiled your web habits and is serving you results based on the sites you frequent.

> Only 7 Rudi? what level do you stop saying – it’s a rogue employee? Let me guess for lefties – 1,500?
> Google’s your friend Rudi – just Google Acorn and report back.

Since you obviously did not bother to read the links he posted, let me sum it up for you.

1. Acorn hires canvassers for registration. These are NOT regular Acorn employees.
2. A small number of them were bad apples and submitted fake names to get paid without working.
3. Acorn VERIFIED them and found the entries suspicious.
4. Acorn is NOT ALLOWED BY LAW to discard the entries they could not successfully verify.
5. As required by law, they submitted them after flagging them as suspicious.
6. Investigation simply confirmed Acorn’s flags and the law followed course.

Fraudulent registrations don’t directly go into the polling system. There are further several checks. And finally, the Mickey Mouses and Donald Ducks have to actually show up at the polling booth with an ID for it to actually become VOTER FRAUD. None of this has happened.

You throw around statements like “go educate yourself”. I gave you the benefit of doubt that you actually had some info that I did not have since I respect people who go directly to primary documents. They are not as quick reads as newspaper articles. However, I am mistaken. So far you have not demonstrated from your language or content, any hint of patience, respect or intellect, consistent with a person who actually does any of that.

Rudi666 :
Interest – Care to show some links to back up your claim? Are you claiming this from the last election, or over ACORN’s entire history? Seems I found only seven indicted in Pennsylvania:
http://news.google.com/news?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=Acorn+employees++indicted+-bachmann
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_627824.html
http://community2.myfoxorlando.com/_ACORN-VOTER-FRAUD/BLOG/281579/72667.html

Only 7 Rudi? what level do you stop saying – it’s a rogue employee? Let me guess for lefties – 1,500?

Google’s your friend Rudi – just Google Acorn and report back.

@Interested
Please post links to the documents you refer to. I like reading things that make me to reconsider my positions.

Sure here you go

http://www.google.com/search?q=acorn

Start at the top

That’s why I asked you if you supported the favored foreign policy approach of academic leftists everywhere: that the U.S. should only use force when it is being invaded, or better yet in cases when it is manifestly NOT IN OUR NATIONAL INTERESTS to do so. Indeed, by taking action for no other reason than to stop genocide, for example, the U.S. would be demonstrating it’s good faith efforts to set aside its long history of colonial hegemony and profit-motivated interventionism. Does that about describe your outlook on American foreign policy? If not, perhaps you’ll let us know what approach you do support instead of slandering the good names of heroic men and women of the U.S. military.

It is interesting that progressives and hard-left Iraq War opponents would largely blame the war and its aftermath for the recent federal deficits, but then would complain that we did Iraq reconstruction was done on the cheap (your schools example). If your response is, “I don’t begrudge the reconstruction dollars, but I demand accountability for how the dollars are/were spent in Iraq,” then maybe you and I have some room for agreement. If so, let’s start our partnership by demanding accountability for how TARP, stimulus, and other “recovery” monies are being spent.

ignoring most international limitations on warfare

Actual empirical research by Colin Kahl*** (no neocon is he!), among others, has persuasively disproved this talking point. By examining the actual rules of engagement and the performance of those rules on the ground in Iraq, Kahl has found that American forces’ adherence to the principle of non-combatant immunity has BOTH (1) been very good by historical and comparative standards and (2) has tended to improve over time.

Once again, Kast/Garland/Xel/next-name-TBD, you simply do not know what you are talking about. There are many legitimate criticisms to be made about American policies in Iraq — Kahl himself has made many you would probably agree with about the justifiability of the entire conflict — but the one you chose exposes the fact that you are relying on ignorant and bigoted talking points rather than actual investigation.

*** For academic snobs, a more methodologically technical piece by the same scholar making the same points can be found in the journal International Security.

That seems to be the last refuge for some of the War’s most ardent cheer-leaders: we got rid of Saddam and maybe made Iraq a slightly better place. Seeing as there was no national defense interests at stake in Iraq, the only last “argument” is that you can launch a war simply because you want to spread democracy. Well, if that is enough of a rationale to go to war, then why not haul off to Darfur if they are feeling so benign and democracy-promoting.

“Anyway, I thought GW Bush-era progressives were against democracy promotion in places alleged to be not suited to it”

“We” are against giving contracts to well-connected companies and ignoring most international limitations on warfare (designed to preserve the interests of civilians in countries attacked by another power) under a guise of generous guiding to democracy that is completely transparent. If the US wanted to just be nice and give Iraqis democracy at a great cost, then why did it give reconstruction contracts to corporations that built schools that could barely stand up? Why was the war so incredibly poorly planned and why did it seem so schizophrenic? Simply because the interests of the Iraqis was never a concern and once the WMD’s and Al-Qaeda links turned out to be non-existent (like everyone with half a brain had been saying) the “spreading of democracy” was invented, with the Bush administration effectively hiding behind Iraq’s population. At least the US didn’t issue a useless embargo that killed half a million people this time.

>> But it would still be wrong.

Of course. No contention about that. There was voter “registration” fraud and people went to jail for it. My contention was only with conflating that to claim de-legitimization of the entire US election and comparing it to the ongoing fiasco in Iran.

@Interested
Please post links to the documents you refer to. I like reading things that make me to reconsider my positions.

I have a little bit of evidence (just one account) that people there do not necessarily want to see the breakdown of the system, just reform.

That may be changing, though.