House Republican Retards Defund Nonexistent Organization

[Synthaholic]

House GOP Defunds ACORN Yet Again, Even Though ACORN Does Not Exist



WASHINGTON -- The House GOP quietly blocked funding for ACORN last week, even though the anti-poverty organization has long since been both defunded and disbanded.


The legislative assault on ACORN, which shut down in 2010, was included in a Department of Defense appropriations bill that cleared the House on Thursday. Although the bill passed by a broad, bipartisan margin of 315-97, it garnered attention for an amendment proposed by Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) that would have stopped the government from collecting masses of phone call metadata without reasonable suspicion.


Amash's amendment failed, but language to bar ACORN from receiving any money made the final cut. Section 8097 of the bill reads, "None of the funds made available under this Act may be distributed to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) or its subsidiaries."

ACORN cannot receive any funding from the U.S. government under any legislation, of course, because ACORN does not exist. Similarly, ACORN has no subsidiaries because ACORN does not exist.

 

[Old Rocks]

What! You actually expect the Republicans to actually know something?

 

[blackhawk]

We know Bush is no longer President something Democrats have still not figured out after four and half years.

 

[Avatar4321]

It's common knowledge Acorn renamed and broke itself up to several organizations and went right back to the government teet.

 

[Synthaholic]

It's common knowledge Acorn renamed and broke itself up to several organizations and went right back to the government teet.

Links?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It's common knowledge Acorn renamed and broke itself up to several organizations and went right back to the government teet.

That is at least partially true, but this legislation won't defund any of them.

 

[Avatar4321]

It's common knowledge Acorn renamed and broke itself up to several organizations and went right back to the government teet.

Links?

Is it really my responsibility to keep you informed when we've had countless discussions on the matter?

 

[NightFox]

ACORN cannot receive any funding from the U.S. government under any legislation, of course, because ACORN does not exist. Similarly, ACORN has no subsidiaries because ACORN does not exist.

Typical federal government skullduggery, cut off funding for defunct external organizations (who should have never gotten tax payer money in the first place) but continue to fund the galaxy of wasteful, redundant, corrupt, never should have been funded in the first place ones that still do.

 

[Darkwind]

Why would there still be funding for an organization that does not exist?

So, either the Republicans are doing their job and cleaning up the budget, as they should, or the OP knows the funds are going somewhere and doesn't want them removed from the budget.

Either way, it is stupid to continue to set money aside for an organization that does not exist.

Isn't it?

 

[NightFox]

Why would there still be funding for an organization that does not exist?

If I'm not mistaken the federal funds for ACORN were cut-off a couple of years back after all the ACORN scandals ,if this is the case, it means it was just redundant legislation in the House, unless of course there was some sort of requirement to renew the discontinuation of funding? (which strikes me as inefficient).

 

[LoneLaugher]

Why would there still be funding for an organization that does not exist?

If I'm not mistaken the federal funds for ACORN were cut-off a couple of years back after all the ACORN scandals ,if this is the case, it means it was just redundant legislation in the House, unless of course there was some sort of requirement to renew the discontinuation of funding? (which strikes me as inefficient).

You are indeed very kind.

This was done so that all the new faces in Congress could go back to their gerrymandered districts and throw a piece of red meat to their base.

"Blah.....blah.....blah....I voted to defund ACORN......blah.....blah.....blah"

Darkwind would like every entity or program that no longer receives funding because it no longer exists......to be explicitly mentioned in every appropriations bill. He thinks if you don't explicitly mention that they will not get funding......they will get funding. The funds go into the abyss.

And.......he made this brilliant observation with such certainty.

 

[NightFox]

Why would there still be funding for an organization that does not exist?

If I'm not mistaken the federal funds for ACORN were cut-off a couple of years back after all the ACORN scandals ,if this is the case, it means it was just redundant legislation in the House, unless of course there was some sort of requirement to renew the discontinuation of funding? (which strikes me as inefficient).

Darkwind would like every entity or program that no longer receives funding because it no longer exists......to be explicitly mentioned in every appropriations bill. He thinks if you don't explicitly mention that they will not get funding......they will get funding. The funds go into the abyss.

I don't want to put words in Darkwinds mouth, but I got the impression that he/she was probably unaware that ACORN had previously been explicitly denied federal funding (understandable since it was a while ago and the hub-bub surrounding it didn't last very long if I remember right).

 

[rightwinger]

The GOP owes ACORN an apology and full funding

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhZ9jE7Ztt4"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhZ9jE7Ztt4[/ame]

 

[LoneLaugher]

If I'm not mistaken the federal funds for ACORN were cut-off a couple of years back after all the ACORN scandals ,if this is the case, it means it was just redundant legislation in the House, unless of course there was some sort of requirement to renew the discontinuation of funding? (which strikes me as inefficient).

Darkwind would like every entity or program that no longer receives funding because it no longer exists......to be explicitly mentioned in every appropriations bill. He thinks if you don't explicitly mention that they will not get funding......they will get funding. The funds go into the abyss.

I don't want to put words in Darkwinds mouth, but I got the impression that he/she was probably unaware that ACORN had previously been explicitly denied federal funding (understandable since it was a while ago and the hub-bub surrounding it didn't last very long if I remember right).

You don't have to put words in his/her mouth. His words were very clear. Clearly illogical. It's OK, though. There is nothing wrong with being kind.

 

[FA_Q2]

It is a DoD appropriations bill. Do you actually think that they re-author the entire bill every time it is passed? Don’t be silly, they take the old bill, make some changes and then pass it again. A simple passage was overlooked likely because it is utterly meaningless and did not really warrant changing in the first place. Considering that you are looking at thousands of provisions I hardly think that the ACORN provision warranted such asinine attention.

In June, the last time HuffPost asked Hing about ACORN defunding language, she replied, "These provisions are typically carried every year in appropriations bills."

So, no. You retardedly assumed that the provision located in the 8000’s was some assault on ACORN. It is not.

 

[zeke]

Why would there still be funding for an organization that does not exist?

If I'm not mistaken the federal funds for ACORN were cut-off a couple of years back after all the ACORN scandals ,if this is the case, it means it was just redundant legislation in the House, unless of course there was some sort of requirement to renew the discontinuation of funding? (which strikes me as inefficient).

You are indeed very kind.

This was done so that all the new faces in Congress could go back to their gerrymandered districts and throw a piece of red meat to their base.

"Blah.....blah.....blah....I voted to defund ACORN......blah.....blah.....blah"

Darkwind would like every entity or program that no longer receives funding because it no longer exists......to be explicitly mentioned in every appropriations bill. He thinks if you don't explicitly mention that they will not get funding......they will get funding. The funds go into the abyss.

And.......he made this brilliant observation with such certainty.

I thought that was what he said also. Then I thought, no, that fuker ain't that stupid. Then I read your rephrase and thought, well hell yes, Darkwind is stupid enough to say that. And mean it to. Amazing.

 

[deltex1]

What was the office...the Obabble transparency project??

 

[Stephanie]

already posted like a month ago...so the big bold letters is meaningless..

good grief...now the gop is owing people apologies because of Maddcow...what a warped world some live in

 

[Darkwind]

Why would there still be funding for an organization that does not exist?

If I'm not mistaken the federal funds for ACORN were cut-off a couple of years back after all the ACORN scandals ,if this is the case, it means it was just redundant legislation in the House, unless of course there was some sort of requirement to renew the discontinuation of funding? (which strikes me as inefficient).

You are indeed very kind.

This was done so that all the new faces in Congress could go back to their gerrymandered districts and throw a piece of red meat to their base.

"Blah.....blah.....blah....I voted to defund ACORN......blah.....blah.....blah"

Darkwind would like every entity or program that no longer receives funding because it no longer exists......to be explicitly mentioned in every appropriations bill. He thinks if you don't explicitly mention that they will not get funding......they will get funding. The funds go into the abyss.

And.......he made this brilliant observation with such certainty.

you want to go pay My electric bill since you seem to live in My head?

In fact, I want funding for all 'non-existant' programs and entities to be explicitly removed from the budget. It is called responsible accounting and responsible government. The fact that you and people like you want to make hay off of cleaning up the books tells Me that you would rather keep this kind of thing going because it allows the corrupted to justify taxation.

Now, about that electric bill.....

 

[Darkwind]

If I'm not mistaken the federal funds for ACORN were cut-off a couple of years back after all the ACORN scandals ,if this is the case, it means it was just redundant legislation in the House, unless of course there was some sort of requirement to renew the discontinuation of funding? (which strikes me as inefficient).

You are indeed very kind.

This was done so that all the new faces in Congress could go back to their gerrymandered districts and throw a piece of red meat to their base.

"Blah.....blah.....blah....I voted to defund ACORN......blah.....blah.....blah"

Darkwind would like every entity or program that no longer receives funding because it no longer exists......to be explicitly mentioned in every appropriations bill. He thinks if you don't explicitly mention that they will not get funding......they will get funding. The funds go into the abyss.

And.......he made this brilliant observation with such certainty.

I thought that was what he said also. Then I thought, no, that fuker ain't that stupid. Then I read your rephrase and thought, well hell yes, Darkwind is stupid enough to say that. And mean it to. Amazing.

So, you too have lost the debate and resorted to attacking Me personally.

This is about the speed of this crew. Need some lunch money?