Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)
-   -   The Need For Reform of Campaign Financing (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/172142-need-reform-campaign-financing.html)

lofhay 05-18-2011 12:35 PM

The Need For Reform of Campaign Financing
 
Much has been said about the need for reform in how political campaigns are financed. The legislation which requires a candidate to choose between using public funding and private funding was an attempt to deal with the problem, but, in my opinion, has accomplished nothing useful. Most political candidates can raise lots more money from contributions from the big money interests than would be allocated to them if they accept public (taxpayer) funding under the present system. Thus, the advantage goes to the monied interests, i.e. wealthy candidates and big corporations. The less wealthy, particularly challengers, have less money for campaigning than do the more wealthy and the incumbents. Few careerist politicians want to change this system, because they like the advantage it gives them.

What if the rules were changed to allow only public money to be used for campaigning---no personal or private or corporate money allowed? What if any and all candidates were restricted to a fixed amount (provided by the federal government) to be spent on campaigns? Would this not eliminate the undue influence of lobbyists and big business, all of whom want some favor in return? Would this not put all candidates on an equal footing and force them to focus on the issues instead of on how to raise money?

Without strictly public funding and limited campaign spending, are our politicians really any different from those corrupt officeholders in other countries where bribery and graft are common practice?

Such reform is another one of those badly needed changes, like term limits, which will come about only when enough of us citizens demand it.

urville 05-21-2011 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lofhay (Post 2902656)
Such reform is another one of those badly needed changes, like term limits, which will come about only when enough of us citizens demand it.

I could see a temporary term limit package that expires later to remove the career politicians. I rather wish service was and voting in the govt in some form or another was some kind of compulsary experience. Certainly regarded as more important and taught better.

If voting was compulsary to get a drivers license or something similar. And educational class that goes with it on how American politics work.

I do believe lobbys should be outlawed, and PACs, think tanks, etc.

Earmarking, essentially piggybacking bills too. Why shouldnt a bill be made into a plain english version by independent group, shared with voters, and then voted on by constiuents? A little work, but a real change. I'm no expert just spitballing here.

Basically, allow each politician a set amount of public funds and thats it, nothing extravagant, just enough to make a solid campaign. All equal to other candidates in the same race, and more debates.

No more money in politics except a bit of campaign financing and the politicians pay check from the USG. All they need beyond that is our voices and swift criminal action if they accept property, goods, or any kind of compensation from any entity private or otherwise to sway or vote in any direction besides the popular vote.

I also think the electoral college should be dissolved.

Willravel 05-21-2011 09:24 AM

I think, ultimately, this boils down to a few core questions:

1) Do you believe money is free speech? The Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that corporate funding of political campaign ads can't be legally limited because corporations are protected under the First Amendment. Glenn Greenwald (former civil rights attorney, current liberal political blog icon) basically made the point that a law that violates the Constitution can't be upheld simply because the law produces good outcomes, therefore the ruling, while possibly disastrous, was the right one. Not being an attorney myself, though, I don't find this argument particularly compelling. I'm not sure how the Constitution would matter if corporations ran the United States government, and clearly corporate influence has already caused numerous violations of the Constitution, even just in the last decade.

2) What are our alternatives, and which is the best? In the United States, the primary source of campaign funds comes from individuals, followed by PACs (hard money), however advertisements and donations to parties and other political activities (soft money) are primarily funded by corporations, political organizations, and unions. This leads to certain imbalances. Alternatives to this system generally involve public financing. Clean elections, for example, are entirely free of private money. As to which is best? I really don't know. Just as the American system is complicated and difficult to understand in its entirety, other countries, from Canada to Germany to France are also quite complicated and objectively comparing them is difficult to say the least.

3) How can significant campaign finance reform be accomplished? This may be the most difficult question of all. Various attempts have been made, however many of them have failed because of entrenched interests. The way campaign finance works now is to the benefit of those who have the power to change it, namely members of the House and Senate, and the President. While some individuals are able to choose principle over self-interest, it's been made clear time and again that most don't. The strategy then becomes making it in the interest of these individuals to support campaign finance by threatening their power, be that through elections or through preventing the individual from otherwise profiting from the campaign finance system. Unfortunately, the level of organization necessary to pursue such a thing is incredibly difficult to attain and then maintain. While this in part due to apathy, it also has to do with #2, in that not many people are educated on the alternatives, and even among them, there's disagreement on how the current system could be changed for the better. The best chance I can see currently are the numerous movements which came into being in the wake of Citizens United, which want to create a Constitutional Amendment or otherwise undo the consequences of the ruling. Still, the amount of money and manpower necessary to accomplish such a thing is unlikely to come together.

urville 05-21-2011 01:38 PM

I'll give my answers to that! Try something I figure, this isnt working

1) No sir I do not. Everyone has a voice and it should be taken equally. Not everyone can equally get dollars. Why replace what isnt broken. Speech is not dollars and dollars should not represent speech.

2)Public indeed.

3)REVOLUTION! lol, maybe not. you'd have to end lobbying? Might have to do somethingto undermine their abilities to do what they do... even if illegal. or revolution lol

lofhay 05-22-2011 06:46 AM

Even if one thinks that money is free speech, there must be limits on it's use just as there are limits on free speech. Speech which incites to riot or promotes treason can not be permitted because it endangers others. Money used to garner excessive political power must be guarded against because it takes advantage of those who are powerless to defend themselves from abuse. The supreme court was wrong about this.

roachboy 05-22-2011 02:09 PM

the consequences of the conservative-dominated supreme court's citizen's united decision continue to roll out:

Secret Donors Multiply in U.S. Election Spending - Bloomberg

this is the machinery that transforms the united states into a plutocracy.
at some point the plutocracy will go too far in asserting its interests at the expense of the rest of us and maybe at that point the united states will start to catch up with tahrir.

Willravel 05-22-2011 02:17 PM

TBH, I kinda hope this thing with Clarence Thomas (breaking ethics law requiring federal employees to disclose their spouse’s income and employers and the massive conflict of interest with Citizens United) ends with him retiring. Never asking questions is one thing, but he clearly isn't an objective jurist and America is suffering in part because of his inability to divorce himself from his politics.

aceventura3 05-24-2011 08:01 AM

Regarding the need for campaign finance reform I have one starting question:

How much does money affect election results?

My initial belief is that once a candidate has enough money, having more is of little consequence. Once I am aware of a candidate (local, state, national) and I know their positions, my vote has never been influenced by an ad or other marketing materials. I am aware of many situations where the candidate with the most money or the best marketing campaign did not win - so I wonder are we trying to fix something that is not a problem? If so, why? I suspect the real goal is for those currently in power to establish rules that will make it increasingly difficult for people "outside" the system to gain political power rather than opposite being true.

---------- Post added at 04:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:53 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2903504)
TBH, I kinda hope this thing with Clarence Thomas (breaking ethics law requiring federal employees to disclose their spouse’s income and employers and the massive conflict of interest with Citizens United) ends with him retiring. Never asking questions is one thing, but he clearly isn't an objective jurist and America is suffering in part because of his inability to divorce himself from his politics.

How far would you go with an alleged conflict of interest based on an association? Significant others? Life partners? Parents? Children? Mistresses? Hunting buddies? College roommates?

Thinking of my marriage, my wife is an independent thinker and that is the basis of our relationship. I don't control her political activities and she doesn't control mine. In your view, would a conflict she has automatically be mine? Why? And if so, why would my relationship with her be different than relationships I have with others?

filtherton 05-24-2011 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2903912)
Regarding the need for campaign finance reform I have one starting question:

How much does money affect election results?

My initial belief is that once a candidate has enough money, having more is of little consequence. Once I am aware of a candidate (local, state, national) and I know their positions, my vote has never been influenced by an ad or other marketing materials. I am aware of many situations where the candidate with the most money or the best marketing campaign did not win - so I wonder are we trying to fix something that is not a problem? If so, why? I suspect the real goal is for those currently in power to establish rules that will make it increasingly difficult for people "outside" the system to gain political power rather than opposite being true.

While the consolidation of power is likely an implicit goal of most people who have power, there are studies that show statistically significant correlations between campaign contributions to politicians and subsequent voting by those politicians. So that politicians tend to vote for things that help the people who give them money. Certainly, some of this effect has to do with the fact that people give money to politicians who share their interests, but given the fact that large donors seem to have better access to politicians than the average person, it seems plausible that the effect extends beyond just being a function of likemindedness. This is the problem. It has nothing to do with the fact that the better funded candidate doesn't always get elected.

Quote:

How far would you go with an alleged conflict of interest based on an association? Significant others? Life partners? Parents? Children? Mistresses? Hunting buddies? College roommates?

Thinking of my marriage, my wife is an independent thinker and that is the basis of our relationship. I don't control her political activities and she doesn't control mine. In your view, would a conflict she has automatically be mine? Why? And if so, why would my relationship with her be different than relationships I have with others?
Why does your relationship with your wife matter at all? Your particular experience could not be less relevant, unless you're Clarence Thomas.

People tend to look out for the interests of their friends and family. Sometimes, people aren't even aware that their perspective is being clouded by their conflicts of interest. The simplest and most consistent way to deal with this is to exclude people who have conflicts of interest from taking part in the decisions from which the conflict arises.

Willravel 05-24-2011 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2903912)
How far would you go with an alleged conflict of interest based on an association?

I'd go precisely as far as you're willing to lie.

I seriously doubt that Clarence Thomas, one of the supposed great legal minds of our time, can't understand a simple tax form for six years straight. And the part he made a 'mistake' on happens to be the part about his wife working for two conservative organizations, the Heritage Foundation and Liberty Central. I'm sure you're aware that these groups were very active in opposing healthcare reform. I'm also sure you're aware that the Affordable Healthcare Act's constitutionality has been challenged and may end up before the Supreme Court. Kagen promised to recuse herself from the same case because she used to be the solicitor general.

On top of that, he lied about an all expense paid trip in 2008 to Palm Springs to make a speech paid for by Koch Industries, who benefited directly from the Citizens United case which now is allowing them to significantly expand their influence in American politics. This is no small conflict of interest. Scalia is also guilty of speaking at the Koch event and should have similarly recused himself. The event was organized around the goal of creating new conservative strategies to affect political change and prevent liberal political movement, so it was clearly partisan.

BTW, Thomas had a 60 Minutes interview last year. I'm really disappointed that he didn't spend the entire hour in silence.

aceventura3 05-24-2011 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton (Post 2903923)
While the consolidation of power is likely an implicit goal of most people who have power, there are studies that show statistically significant correlations between campaign contributions to politicians and subsequent voting by those politicians. So that politicians tend to vote for things that help the people who give them money. Certainly, some of this effect has to do with the fact that people give money to politicians who share their interests, but given the fact that large donors seem to have better access to politicians than the average person, it seems plausible that the effect extends beyond just being a function of likemindedness. This is the problem. It has nothing to do with the fact that the better funded candidate doesn't always get elected.

In my experience the influence you describe has more to do with motivation than money.

I recall a school board election I was directly involved in and when I spoke to people they fit into four categories with different levels of impact on the election based on their motivation. The group with the least impact were young and some old adults who had no children/grand-children in the school. The next was people who had children in school followed by parents of children with special needs and unions (we had a teachers union and a civil service workers union). Candidates who had the support of the unions and parents of children with special need won. If there was a meeting/rally/debate those motivated to show up were people in those groups. If letters appeared in the paper it was from those groups. Volunteers were from those two groups. People in those two groups attended the school board meetings. So, at the end of the day, those groups held the most influence - and it had almost nothing to do with money, but with their motivation. I see other special interest groups having the same kind of impact across the political spectrum. I suspect motivated people can have a bigger impact than the biggest campaign donors.

So, I am either optimistic about the power regular people have or I am a pollyanna. I truly believe that once regular people have had enough and get motivated, they will easily over-come big money interest. I think the Tea Party is and will be a reflection of that.


Quote:

Why does your relationship with your wife matter at all? Your particular experience could not be less relevant, unless you're Clarence Thomas.
Unless you see the context of my bringing that up, you won't understand why it matters.

---------- Post added at 08:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:06 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2903951)
I'd go precisely as far as you're willing to lie.

I don't lie.

Quote:

I seriously doubt that Clarence Thomas, one of the supposed great legal minds of our time, can't understand a simple tax form for six years straight. And the part he made a 'mistake' on happens to be the part about his wife working for two conservative organizations, the Heritage Foundation and Liberty Central. I'm sure you're aware that these groups were very active in opposing healthcare reform. I'm also sure you're aware that the Affordable Healthcare Act's constitutionality has been challenged and may end up before the Supreme Court. Kagen promised to recuse herself from the same case because she used to be the solicitor general.
I don't dispute Thomas' problem - my issue has more to do with the importance of the question. If the point of the question was really to disclose real conflict of interest, the question falls short. It is no longer 1950 were people have Leave It To Beaver family relationships.

Quote:

On top of that, he lied about an all expense paid trip in 2008 to Palm Springs to make a speech paid for by Koch Industries, who benefited directly from the Citizens United case which now is allowing them to significantly expand their influence in American politics. This is no small conflict of interest. Scalia is also guilty of speaking at the Koch event and should have similarly recused himself. The event was organized around the goal of creating new conservative strategies to affect political change and prevent liberal political movement, so it was clearly partisan.

BTW, Thomas had a 60 Minutes interview last year. I'm really disappointed that he didn't spend the entire hour in silence.
I begin to think that you would have double standards on these issues based on political point of view.

Thomas is who he says he is, it seems to me that you simply want a system where people hide what they truly are. I find that much more of a problem than how a person fills out a form, who pays them for a speech, or what their wife does.

Willravel 05-24-2011 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2903962)
I don't lie.

I was talking about Clarence Thomas' blatant lies of omission.
Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2903962)
I don't dispute Thomas' problem - my issue has more to do with the importance of the question. If the point of the question was really to disclose real conflict of interest, the question falls short. It is no longer 1950 were people have Leave It To Beaver family relationships.

By clearly trying to hide his wife's income, this suggests there's something he's trying to hide. That's where my concern comes from. Why would he lie if there was nothing to hide?
Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2903962)
I begin to think that you would have double standards on these issues based on political point of view.

Thomas is who he says he is, it seems to me that you simply want a system where people hide what they truly are. I find that much more of a problem than how a person fills out a form, who pays them for a speech, or what their wife does.

If who Clarence Thomas is is someone who is happy to be very politically active using his title as Supreme Court Justice to influence politics, that's not someone who belongs on the bench, period. And clearly he IS trying to hide it. It took some investigative journalism to find out he and Scalia were speaking at this political events. How many others have yet to be discovered?

lofhay 05-24-2011 01:25 PM

What is being overlooked in this discussion is that it takes lots of money to run a campaign, and that those already in office spend an inordinate amount of time attending fundraising meetings. Former Senator E. F. Hollings recently wrote a column in the Charleston Post and Courier detailing this fact. Also, bear in mind that the hundreds of lobbyists have an existence only because they have monetary support to offer and every candidate needs the money. The interests represented by the lobbyists don't put up this money for free. They expect, and get, the supported candidate's favor in legislation which affects them. Thus the conflict of interest affects legislation, and money is the big influence.

urville 05-24-2011 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2903962)
In my experience the influence you describe has more to do with motivation than money.

The point for me is not how money effects outcome of elections, though I'm sure others can show it does and how it does. Its how the money spent equals votes for those lobbyists interests instead of the popular voice of the constituency, even if they happen to agree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2903962)
I suspect motivated people can have a bigger impact than the biggest campaign donors.

If only... what a world that would be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2903962)
So, I am either optimistic about the power regular people have or I am a pollyanna. I truly believe that once regular people have had enough and get motivated, they will easily over-come big money interest. I think the Tea Party is and will be a reflection of that.

I agree, but then not really... I cannot consider a billionaire/corporate backed group as being a reflection of people easily overcoming money interests. It's a money interest overcoming another money interests and using a wide swath of societal ignorance to create the illusion of a peoples populist movement by sticking them out in the front. I think the real reflection is yet to come and with it will come finance reform, laws that support truth in campaign advertising,

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2903962)
I don't lie.

Everyone Lies. It's not just a clever line from a TV show. This is my area of expertise, it is a fact.


Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2903962)
I find that much more of a problem than how a person fills out a form, who pays them for a speech, or what their wife does.

I think they are all relevant to character and in considering if a conflict of interest exists.

Baraka_Guru 05-25-2011 05:51 AM

Politicians don't campaign for those who are already going to vote for them.

aceventura3 05-25-2011 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2903967)
By clearly trying to hide his wife's income, this suggests there's something he's trying to hide. That's where my concern comes from. Why would he lie if there was nothing to hide?

First, I am not making excuses for Thomas, but I am looking at the issue from a broader perspective.

In today's world it is easily possible for a husband not to know his spouses income. To me the thought that one spouse has to be responsible for the other in this regard is presumptuous and clearly does not take into consideration other types of relationships that are comparable to marriage.

Thomas may be guilty of not properly answering the question, it is possible that he lied (versus making an error, guessing, etc.), but does the question serve a valid purpose? If so, why not be consistent?

Quote:

If who Clarence Thomas is is someone who is happy to be very politically active using his title as Supreme Court Justice to influence politics, that's not someone who belongs on the bench, period. And clearly he IS trying to hide it. It took some investigative journalism to find out he and Scalia were speaking at this political events. How many others have yet to be discovered?
Again, how far are you willing to take your position? You say Thomas is using his title to influence politics, does that mean that a Supreme court Justice no longer has a right to free speech? Even passively a Supreme Court Justice may influence politics, for example if a justice is observed driving a hybrid car, that would have influence politically. do you expect Judges to live in a vacuum? What is your standard?

Also, one doesn't have to give much thought to some inconsistencies, for example did you study the forms of other Justices for errors or inaccuracies? What is your view on the Treasury Secretary and his tax issues?

---------- Post added at 03:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:32 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by urville (Post 2904061)
The point for me is not how money effects outcome of elections, though I'm sure others can show it does and how it does. Its how the money spent equals votes for those lobbyists interests instead of the popular voice of the constituency, even if they happen to agree.

This is where most people here get upset with me because I try to look at theory and see how the theory works on an individual level. My thinking is that in general the collection of individual behaviors needs to be consistent with the broad theory on behavior being argued.

So in this case the broad theory is that money buys political influence. So I immediately want to start testing that on an individual basis. I always start with me, what would I do, how would I behave? Then I start looking at, observing, and questioning others Here is my answer.

If I am indifferent on an issue - others can influence me.

The degree that they influence me is based on my primary motivators at the time. If I am in need of money, money could influence me. But I could just as easily be influenced by a young person displaying courage and conviction and my desire to champion the cause of an under-dog.

But regardless, if I have strong views on an issue - money, emotion, nothing will move me. I have never sold-out on my strongly held convictions, have you? I think there are more people like me than there are the opposite. So I question the broad theory that money buys political influence.

---------- Post added at 03:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:49 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru (Post 2904126)
Politicians don't campaign for those who are already going to vote for them.

Wow! Where to go with the above? I am curious. If you are married, do you ever buy your wife flowers?:confused:

My wife is my biggest supporter, and I treat her like gold and would never take her for granted. I believe the best politicians are the same way and spend a lot of effort with those that give them votes and support.

P.S. - If you answered the question no, try it.:thumbsup: And report back to us what happened. Even the best of us are somewhat voyeuristic.

Baraka_Guru 05-25-2011 08:38 AM

Another failed analogy, ace.

Willravel 05-25-2011 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2904149)
First, I am not making excuses for Thomas, but I am looking at the issue from a broader perspective.

In today's world it is easily possible for a husband not to know his spouses income. To me the thought that one spouse has to be responsible for the other in this regard is presumptuous and clearly does not take into consideration other types of relationships that are comparable to marriage.

Thomas may be guilty of not properly answering the question, it is possible that he lied (versus making an error, guessing, etc.), but does the question serve a valid purpose? If so, why not be consistent?

The question serves the most valid of purposes: determining the truth. I find it unlikely that one of the keenest legal minds of our time failed, 6 years in a row, where TaxAct succeeds. Because of this, I believe he did this intentionally, and you don't do something like this intentionally without reason. Why would a Supreme Court Justice who's wife works for active political organizations in line with his political views choose not to include his wife's income? The answer to that question is the reason for my (I believe valid) concern.
Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2904149)
Again, how far are you willing to take your position? You say Thomas is using his title to influence politics, does that mean that a Supreme court Justice no longer has a right to free speech?

This isn't a free speech issue at all. This is fundamental judicial responsibility, impartiality. The fact that Thomas' speaking engagement was funded by people who stood to gain a great deal with Citizens United suggests a possible conflict of interest. The fact that his wife's employer pushed for Citizens United suggests a possible conflict of interest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2904149)
Even passively a Supreme Court Justice may influence politics, for example if a justice is observed driving a hybrid car, that would have influence politically. do you expect Judges to live in a vacuum? What is your standard?

My standard is being paid by people who gain directly from your decisions.
Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2904149)
Also, one doesn't have to give much thought to some inconsistencies, for example did you study the forms of other Justices for errors or inaccuracies? What is your view on the Treasury Secretary and his tax issues?

Tu quoque, ace.

aceventura3 05-25-2011 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2904169)
The question serves the most valid of purposes: determining the truth. I find it unlikely that one of the keenest legal minds of our time failed, 6 years in a row, where TaxAct succeeds. Because of this, I believe he did this intentionally, and you don't do something like this intentionally without reason. Why would a Supreme Court Justice who's wife works for active political organizations in line with his political views choose not to include his wife's income? The answer to that question is the reason for my (I believe valid) concern.

There are many who feel as you do, so the next steps should be clear. At the very least it is a civil violation and it could lead to his impeachment and disbarment. When those steps are not taken come back and then tell me the purpose of the question. It is clear the question is out-dated and/or of no real importance. I simply believe the more compelling discussion is regarding the broader issue.

Quote:

This isn't a free speech issue at all. This is fundamental judicial responsibility, impartiality. The fact that Thomas' speaking engagement was funded by people who stood to gain a great deal with Citizens United suggests a possible conflict of interest. The fact that his wife's employer pushed for Citizens United suggests a possible conflict of interest.
I believe Thomas' response was that his wife's activities are of no consequence. He presented the challenge to those who hold your point of view. If his wife's activities are of consequence, prove it. Do something about it. The suggestion that person A has to be accountable for person B's political activity seems odd to me. Perhaps, I don't understand your point of view.

Would you suggest that Michele Obama be restricted from being actively involved in her political party activity or that Obama be held directly responsible for her activity.


Quote:

My standard is being paid by people who gain directly from your decisions.

Tu quoque, ace.
Perhaps Thomas and his wife simply spend time together focusing on their relationship and don't talk money and politics! There are a few guys in the world who after a 10 or 12 hour day at work, don't want to come home and talk about work! And going back to one of my points, a guy's hunting buddy may influence his politics and create a bigger conflict of interest than the activities of his wife - but you have no interest in that regard - hence I question the whole purpose of this. "Truth", I doubt it. I think you just want Thomas to go away and will pursue any means to get it done.

---------- Post added at 08:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:23 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru (Post 2904163)
Another failed analogy, ace.

I believe it was the Great Bambino who said:

"Every strike brings me closer to the next home run."

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._in_Sendai.jpg

I have no fear of failure.:)

dc_dux 05-25-2011 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2904169)
The question serves the most valid of purposes: determining the truth. I find it unlikely that one of the keenest legal minds of our time failed, 6 years in a row, where TaxAct succeeds. Because of this, I believe he did this intentionally, and you don't do something like this intentionally without reason. Why would a Supreme Court Justice who's wife works for active political organizations in line with his political views choose not to include his wife's income? The answer to that question is the reason for my (I believe valid) concern.

This isn't a free speech issue at all. This is fundamental judicial responsibility, impartiality. The fact that Thomas' speaking engagement was funded by people who stood to gain a great deal with Citizens United suggests a possible conflict of interest. The fact that his wife's employer pushed for Citizens United suggests a possible conflict of interest.


My standard is being paid by people who gain directly from your decisions.

Tu quoque, ace.

I agree with all of the above, except the part about Thomas being one of the "keenest legal minds of our time."

His paid speech at a conservative/libertarian event organized by the Koch brothers was improper.

And his wife working for a political organization opposed to the Affordable Care Act is reason enough for Thomas to recuse himself when the law's constitutionality reaches the Court.

I would suggest both would violate canons of the Code of Conduct for Federal Judicial Employees on "appearance of impropriety" issues alone.

Unfortunately, when the Code was adopted, the Supreme Court exempted itself and its employees.

aceventura3 05-25-2011 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2904216)
I would suggest both would violate canons of the Code of Conduct for Federal Judicial Employees on "appearance of impropriety" issues alone.

Is your primary concern "appearance"?

Is their any proof that his spouse's behavior has or will actually influence his official conduct?

Is it a surprise that Thomas has a Constitutional view point that may lead him to rule the health care law unconstitutional. Anyone who has ever read anything he has written or said can anticipate what his position is - that as a given, how could anyone believe his wife will influence his official behavior?

You folks are not fooling anyone, we know the issue is purely political. Why not own up to it?

This issue with Thomas has been on the table for a long time now, why not act on it and stop the complaining?

I have blown off my steam, I know the answers to my questions above. There is no reason to engage me further on this topic.

dc_dux 05-25-2011 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2904247)
Is your primary concern "appearance"?

Is their any proof that his spouse's behavior has or will actually influence his official conduct?

Is it a surprise that Thomas has a Constitutional view point that may lead him to rule the health care law unconstitutional. Anyone who has ever read anything he has written or said can anticipate what his position is - that as a given, how could anyone believe his wife will influence his official behavior?

You folks are not fooling anyone, we know the issue is purely political. Why not own up to it?

This issue with Thomas has been on the table for a long time now, why not act on it and stop the complaining?

I have blown off my steam, I know the answers to my questions above. There is no reason to engage me further on this topic.

ace, once again, you missed the point. You consistently ignore the facts placed in front of you.

The issue is not my concern about "appearance," it is the Code of Conduct that refers to "appearing to advance the private interests of others."

And, it is not a question of proof, but adherence to the Code of Conduct, even if only on a voluntarily basis.

Given that the Court is exempt from the Code, there is no procedure to act on it, even if Congress had such an inclination.

I agree, your adherence to your ideology to the point that you are unwilling or unable to understand the value of such a Code is political.

---------- Post added at 09:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:07 PM ----------

The credibility of the Supreme Court is dependent not only on the legal merits of its judgements, but also, unlike the legislative or executive branches, on assurances of its independence from political influence.

When a justice is payed by a political interest to participate in a meeting or when a justice's spouse is paid to lobby against legislation that may come before the Court, appearance of independence from political influence matters.

Do you see no value in a code of conduct for federal judges, or just no value in the code including standards that judges "should not lend prestige of the office ...that appear to advance the private interests of others?"

urville 05-26-2011 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2904149)
In today's world it is easily possible for a husband not to know his spouses income.

Once you take ona position like Supreme Court Justice, that excuse goes out the door. Thats your responsibility in public service. so even if that is the case he fails on being competent, however, it is the case as has been pointed out.



Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2904149)
Again, how far are you willing to take your position? You say Thomas is using his title to influence politics, does that mean that a Supreme court Justice no longer has a right to free speech? Even passively a Supreme Court Justice may influence politics, for example if a justice is observed driving a hybrid car, that would have influence politically. do you expect Judges to live in a vacuum? What is your standard?

To the bank. I expect as a supreme court justice that you act with integrity and that yes you abstain from any opinion and influence based on political standing or bias or you do not take the oath. He can still vote, what more influence does he need, thats the one we all get by law and right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2904149)
This is where most people here get upset with me because I try to look at theory and see how the theory works on an individual level. My thinking is that in general the collection of individual behaviors needs to be consistent with the broad theory on behavior being argued.

I dont even have time to go through everything wrong with your reasoning here. You are not a politician in this system we are talking about on the level we are talking about and are therefore not relevant as subject for testing. Secondly you can never use yourself in testing, its a bias no matter how hard you try or what you believe. It's not allowed in actual testing for someone to take a test serious, for a reason. Everyone has a price, its easy for you ina discussion to talk, but that doesnt not accurately and can not accurately represent a model for testing. You also by limiting to one and yourself throw out the possibility to statistically determine what percentage of a whole of a testing model would function like or unlike you, because there is only you.

In fact... this is like what I was explaining to you in that other thread, that you do... in all these arguments. You need to read up on Critical Thinking and the difference between Objective and Subjective reasoning. Thats probably why people get upset at you.



---------- Post added at 09:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:18 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2904247)
You folks are not fooling anyone, we know the issue is purely political. Why not own up to it?

I actually think a fair and balanced system must have many viewpoints involved, but done so in a manner that is clear and not in a conflict of interest. Period. Thomas himself is not the issue for me, it is this kind of allowed conflict in all levels of government. This is as good as any to be vocal. I am just as vocal about Obama and his allowing these people involved in the financial meltdown to continue their existence in government and without ramifications as i was on every president going all the way back, and thats just one other subject and summarized.

I've covered this, now your just resorting to accusations...

aceventura3 05-26-2011 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2904255)
ace, once again, you missed the point. You consistently ignore the facts placed in front of you.

I will try one more time.

I acknowledged the facts and have gone on to a bigger issue. Thomas clearly stated that his wife's actions are of no consequence. Translated - It is true, F-you, what you gonna do about it?

Quote:

The issue is not my concern about "appearance," it is the Code of Conduct that refers to "appearing to advance the private interests of others."
It appears that either you don't understand the Code or I don't. I ask questions seeking clarification. The segment of the Code in question is vague, the only way to understand it is to understand how it would apply to different circumstances. For me to understand your point of view I need to offer you hypotheticals. You won't respond to them, so I will never really understand your point of view it it is anything other than politically motivated. I have come to my conclusion.

Quote:

And, it is not a question of proof, but adherence to the Code of Conduct, even if only on a voluntarily basis.
He voluntarily told the world that his wife's actions are of no consequence. He put the ball in "your" court. If her actions are of consequence, don't you have to provide proof?

Quote:

Given that the Court is exempt from the Code, there is no procedure to act on it, even if Congress had such an inclination.
Your statement here clearly shows a lack of imagination. If this was truly a serious issue, I think Congress could find some way to act and influence the situation. this is simply another one of those issues where people in your party can go around and fake your outrage knowing full well there is no real intent to do anything. How many times in the past 10 years have conservatives given liberals the figurative finger ( yea, I did it, what are you gonna do about it) and liberals have just rolled over? You folks have no credibility.

Quote:

I agree, your adherence to your ideology to the point that you are unwilling or unable to understand the value of such a Code is political.

---------- Post added at 09:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:07 PM ----------

The credibility of the Supreme Court is dependent not only on the legal merits of its judgements, but also, unlike the legislative or executive branches, on assurances of its independence from political influence.

When a justice is payed by a political interest to participate in a meeting or when a justice's spouse is paid to lobby against legislation that may come before the Court, appearance of independence from political influence matters.

Do you see no value in a code of conduct for federal judges, or just no value in the code including standards that judges "should not lend prestige of the office ...that appear to advance the private interests of others?"
I am curious in light of your presentation on this issue of Ethics and the appearance of a conflict of interest. In the case Gore V Bush, where we had Supreme Court Justices who clearly had past party affiliations, spouses and children with party affiliations, Justices who had been nominated by past Presidents of specified parties, where Gore had a track record of supporting and opposing various Justices in their nominating process, etc, etc, etc - yet no one recused themselves from the case because of the "appearance"? Were you vocal about the Code in that case? Why not if no?

Codes don't make me feel warm and fuzzy - I look at specific behaviors and actions, or what is real.

---------- Post added at 04:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:20 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by urville (Post 2904370)
Once you take ona position like Supreme Court Justice, that excuse goes out the door. Thats your responsibility in public service. so even if that is the case he fails on being competent, however, it is the case as has been pointed out.

It is not an excuse. It is a vague and useless question. It fails to address other types of relationships. The question put one person at risk for the behavior of another.

Are you really comfortable with the idea of being held accountable for the actions of another? How far do you go with this? Your wife gave $100 to a church, therefore you can not rule on any issue involving religion????Your son worked delivering for the NY Times, therefore you can not rule on issues involving the press??? Or, your wife tells you she made $50,000, but she really made $60,000 (she put $10,000 in her secrete divorce account because you take her for granted and don't buy her flowers any longer similar to Baraka-G outlook involving politicians), and you get impeached???

urville 05-26-2011 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2904377)
Are you really comfortable with the idea of being held accountable for the actions of another? How far do you go with this? Your wife gave $100 to a church, therefore you can not rule on any issue involving religion????Your son worked delivering for the NY Times, therefore you can not rule on issues involving the press??? Or, your wife tells you she made $50,000, but she really made $60,000 (she put $10,000 in her secrete divorce account because you take her for granted and don't buy her flowers any longer similar to Baraka-G outlook involving politicians), and you get impeached???

When tis my wife and i'm a supreme court judge? Are you joking? Yes of course, I'd be certain of it. No, it would be a discussion before I even took the bench obviously. If i dot his there are certaint hings we cant do, is that okay? Now your being hyperbolic. Those examples are not indicative of what we are talking about here... really? This is about hiding money from the wrong people for the wrong reasons. In public service your accounts and activities should be just that public. Dont like it, dont run. it serves a very distinct and good purpose to make sure your not getting money from or giving money to the wrong kinds of things, things that create a conflict of interest. Thats the point. Conflicts of interest. Thats what this is. We're talking hundreds of thousands and considerable influence. It wouldnt matter to me if they were FOR the cause, its not right.

aceventura3 05-26-2011 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urville (Post 2904385)
When tis my wife and i'm a supreme court judge? Are you joking? Yes of course, I'd be certain of it. No, it would be a discussion before I even took the bench obviously. If i dot his there are certaint hings we cant do, is that okay? Now your being hyperbolic.

Is being a Supreme Court Justice require your spouse to forfeit her rights as an individual? Does it require the spouse to get "approval" for her actions? These questions are not hyperbolic. My question to you was how far are you willing to take this. It is easy to address in a Leave it To Beaver, 1950's tradition of marriage, but this is not 1950. Imagine - well Mrs. you are married to Clarence Thomas - you need to get his permission before we hire you...??? Yes, we will sell the car to you as soon as you bring permission from your husband, because after all you are no longer an individual when you get married....???? Or, if he doesn't know everything his wife is doing you would subject him to some form of discipline???


Quote:

Those examples are not indicative of what we are talking about here... really? This is about hiding money from the wrong people for the wrong reasons.
If the issue is really about money, the best way to get the information is to have them submit their tax forms, even if they file separately.

I bet you could ask many married professionals with separate careers or entrepreneurs how much their spouse made and the best you would get is an estimate. Not even to mention those who have complicated financial arrangements, i.e. was the income to her business, to her personally, a trust, a charitable flow through, etc. To the guy who is a middle manager married to a person who is a teacher and they do a 1040EZ, that is pretty simple. But for some it ain't that simple. There are some rich people who could even tell you what they make without consulting an army of accountants and lawyers, even then the number can be disputed by reasonable people. All this with no intent to hide anything.

Quote:

In public service your accounts and activities should be just that public.
I fundamentally disagree. I think even public officials should have some privacy rights.

Quote:

Dont like it, dont run.
There are many highly qualified people who don't serve the public good for that very reason. Our question should be, do the requirements actually make things better?

Quote:

it serves a very distinct and good purpose to make sure your not getting money from or giving money to the wrong kinds of things, things that create a conflict of interest. Thats the point.
And I bet you want to judge what the "wrong kinds of things" are. And that you will know it when you see it, so you need to see everything...then if you have a political agenda, I bet you find something!

Quote:

Conflicts of interest. Thats what this is. We're talking hundreds of thousands and considerable influence. It wouldnt matter to me if they were FOR the cause, its not right.
Right, conflicts of interest is what you are talking about. To me the bigger point is actual fraud and deceit.

Remember Enron?

They had a nice well written Code of Ethics. In fact it was more like a 64 page booklet. Every employee had to agree to it, every once in a while managers would hold special meetings talking about it, it was only printed on paper blessed by leaders of every major religion...(I just made that last part up)...

The point is not in vague wording regarding conflicts and ethics but in the actual culture of an organization and the behaviors of the people! It is very easy to have a real conflict of interest and do the right thing. And the pretense that vague words on a piece of paper sets the tone for ethical behavior is laughable to me. I would rather have people who will do what is right even when faced with a conflict. It does not take spending much time to know when you are dealing with a person who will do the right thing - regardless of politics.

urville 05-26-2011 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2904427)
Is being a Supreme Court Justice require your spouse to forfeit her rights as an individual?

Does the question your asking differ from Mrs.Obama and her interests in fighting obesity. On party lines they would seem similar, in rhetoric certainly. but one is wholly different from another. We are talking about influencing and lobbying legislation here and in one case its a position expected to be partisan, the other is supposed to be blind to all of that. How can it claim to be when it isnt, when it hides that it isnt. this isnt the executive branch, this is the judicial branch. As i said before, when it come to this branch of govt I'll take it as far as it has to go to guarantee it is blind as it is supposed to be.

This has nothing to do with what year it is. As a citizen if you want man to man encounters on the side of your wife that's your business, as a public employee such as a representative, judge, etc. You set an example as does your parenting, choice in spouse, finances, etc. Your character up to and during is of the utmost importance. No one is being forced. If you don't like it, don't take the appointment. The appointment is the privilege earned not guaranteed, taken by choice not force.

In this case i think its clear cut. An adult can certainly make the decision whether they are putting themselves in a position of creating a conflict of interest. My wife works for a major national law firm, i cant be involved in any litigation against any of their clients. The job, like the appointment, is a privilege not a right and thus is subject to certain rules. It's not about me or you or gender roles, its about ethics. As Mrs. Thomas, my husband being a justice, I'd be a fool not to expect that, I expect it now. Of course she can sell her car, this is indeed hyperbolic. Lobbying however is another thing, anything involving money in politics... not so much. If you cant tell why one is different from another, God help you.

Yeah, your a justice but you cant make sure your maid is a legal citizen? That your wife is not lobbying? etc... In my opinion you do not deserve the privilege. This isnt like being the CEO of Kmart. This is the law of the United States as it may sometimes or not pertain to every aspect of every citizens life including legislation and legislators, etc. In this case the legality of that legislation in question.

It's not punishment for her doing, its considering whether as a result of not knowing or bothering to know or purposely hiding it that your character is deserving of the privilege. Conflict of interest. By taking that appointment your making a promise, its a lot of responsibility and maybe it isnt for everyone. Dont take the appointment if it isnt for you.

A public officials rights are one thing. His employment is not complete freedom like his citizenship. They come with rules, a job is a privilege. Follow the rules or get a different job. The private sector does this everyday the public sector has no reason to be different. If you see your job requires transparency and you think thats not right, dont take the job. Your not being forced to do anything, you choose. Thats the difference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2904427)
There are many highly qualified people who don't serve the public good for that very reason. Our question should be, do the requirements actually make things better?

There are many criminals who do not for that very reason. There is nothing wrong with this rule as a requirement of employment or in this case appointment or conduct. he had every opportunity to consider not accepting it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2904427)
And I bet you want to judge what the "wrong kinds of things" are. And that you will know it when you see it, so you need to see everything...then if you have a political agenda, I bet you find something!

Is that how you operate? Is that how some conservatives operate? Is it only the left, only those you disagree with? i told you, if the same was true and it had been pro the legislation, I'd still think it was BS and want him held accountable. This isnt a game of ideologies... I actually believe it should be determined by a vote, this probably means congress unfortunately which wont get us a nonpartisan vote. Maybe a popular vote, I dont expect to get that though. I think we should have all kinds of voting on everything because reps cant be trusted anymore, or... (gasp) finance reform! So we actually get our voice back. Voices are not dollars, dollars are not free speech, we all get a vote a voice by the nature of our being. What need do we have for more?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2904427)
The point is not in vague wording regarding conflicts and ethics but in the actual culture of an organization and the behaviors of the people!

It's called the law! What do you expect when we dont enforce it? of course they wont fear and respect it. Enron is not the courts, and we shouldnt let it be the courts. Why do think we're arguing this? Oh right partisan politics. Well your wrong. its because we find this to be outside whats right, it should be outside the law, the standards of the seat, and he should suffer those consequences.

dc_dux 05-26-2011 01:45 PM

ace...your arguments just get weaker and and less defensible when you make statements like:
Quote:

In the case Gore V Bush, where we had Supreme Court Justices who clearly had past party affiliations, spouses and children with party affiliations, Justices who had been nominated by past Presidents of specified parties, where Gore had a track record of supporting and opposing various Justices in their nominating process, etc, etc, etc - yet no one recused themselves from the case because of the "appearance"? Were you vocal about the Code in that case
This is nonsense. The issue is not that Justices may have political affiliations or were nominated by a president of one party or the other, but that while sitting on the Court, they should not be paid for a speaking engagement by a partisan political organization that may have interests coming before the Court.

Or this:
Quote:

I think even public officials should have some privacy rights.
No one has suggested that Thomas's wife cant work for a partisan political organization on a specific issue that will come before the Court, but that simply he should recuse himself when that occurs.

Keep digging a deeper hole in denying that an appearance of the potential of conflict of interest may taint the public perception of the Court's independence.

aceventura3 05-26-2011 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2904443)
ace...your arguments just get weaker and and less defensible when you make statements like:

Keep digging a deeper hole in denying that an appearance of the potential of conflict of interest may taint the public perception of the Court's independence.

Let me cut to the chase for you regarding Conflict of Interest. It is not possible for a Supreme court Justice to not regularly have "conflicts of interests" in the cases they hear. The whole point of being a judge on the Supreme Court is to put the Constitution in front of all other issues, including potential conflict of interest.

If you put any case ever heard by the Court on the table, conflicts of interest can be found. If you don't think some Justices had conflicts of interest in the Gore V Bush case, you need to take some time and re-visit the case and some of the history. You consequently make claims about my supposed indefensible positions and eventually you hide from the truth.

When I press for clarity you fail to provide it. There are clear differences between general conflicts of interest, and perpetuating a fraud leading to the direct enrichment personally and/or of family members. When I asked for proof of how Thomas' spouses actions was a violation of the code, the point was dismissed.

Again, if you ever decide to get serious, let me know.

---------- Post added at 11:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:14 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by urville (Post 2904438)
Does the question your asking differ from Mrs.Obama and her interests in fighting obesity. On party lines they would seem similar, in rhetoric certainly. but one is wholly different from another. We are talking about influencing and lobbying legislation here and in one case its a position expected to be partisan, the other is supposed to be blind to all of that. How can it claim to be when it isnt, when it hides that it isnt. this isnt the executive branch, this is the judicial branch. As i said before, when it come to this branch of govt I'll take it as far as it has to go to guarantee it is blind as it is supposed to be.

You keep going back to the spouses activities. I don't care what the spouse does or did. It is of no importance to me. I would not care if the spouse actually made an argument in front of the Court, I think it would be her privilege to do so and if she exercised that privilege I would still expect a Supreme court Justice to do his job and provide sound Constitutional justification for his/her ruling.

Quote:

This has nothing to do with what year it is. As a citizen if you want man to man encounters on the side of your wife that's your business, as a public employee such as a representative, judge, etc. You set an example as does your parenting, choice in spouse, finances, etc. Your character up to and during is of the utmost importance. No one is being forced. If you don't like it, don't take the appointment. The appointment is the privilege earned not guaranteed, taken by choice not force.
Then be clear and say it in plain language. Judges and politicians, in your view should be held accountable for the behaviors of others. I disagree.

Quote:

In this case i think its clear cut. An adult can certainly make the decision whether they are putting themselves in a position of creating a conflict of interest. My wife works for a major national law firm, i cant be involved in any litigation against any of their clients.
In a case the "people" versus a client of your spouses law firm, technically it means you are involved - what they mean is that you can not be a direct party named in the litigation or be privy to inside information that can impact the case. But, a judge does not represent clients they represent the Constitution and the laws of the land.


Quote:

The job, like the appointment, is a privilege not a right and thus is subject to certain rules. It's not about me or you or gender roles, its about ethics. As Mrs. Thomas, my husband being a justice, I'd be a fool not to expect that, I expect it now. Of course she can sell her car, this is indeed hyperbolic. Lobbying however is another thing, anything involving money in politics... not so much. If you cant tell why one is different from another, God help you.
Then how do you define "lobbying"? Where do you draw the line? Giving Money? Giving a speech? Stuffing envelops? Writing a letter?

Regarding getting paid, if a justice was married to a teacher or professor would the justice then not be allowed to hear a case involving education? Again, where do you draw the line, give me some specifics, some examples of what you want.

Quote:

Yeah, your a justice but you cant make sure your maid is a legal citizen? That your wife is not lobbying? etc... In my opinion you do not deserve the privilege. This isnt like being the CEO of Kmart. This is the law of the United States as it may sometimes or not pertain to every aspect of every citizens life including legislation and legislators, etc. In this case the legality of that legislation in question.
Again why not clearly state your point of view. Are you saying that the spouse of a Supreme Court Justice no longer has the same Constitutional rights that you have? Ever American has the right to lobby or to influence legislation. If your view is as I suspect, I disagree.

Quote:

A public officials rights are one thing. His employment is not complete freedom like his citizenship. They come with rules, a job is a privilege.
If Thomas broke the rules, then those who think he did have a responsibility to act. Wake me up when you see someone doing something rather than the non-stop complaining.

Quote:

Is that how you operate? Is that how some conservatives operate? Is it only the left, only those you disagree with?

No it is how the left is currently operating. The only conflicts they are interested in are the ones that may help their cause.

Quote:

It's called the law! What do you expect when we dont enforce it?
The law doesn't stop people from doing wrong.

dc_dux 05-26-2011 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2904457)
Let me cut to the chase for you regarding Conflict of Interest. It is not possible for a Supreme court Justice to not regularly have "conflicts of interests" in the cases they hear. The whole point of being a judge on the Supreme Court is to put the Constitution in front of all other issues, including potential conflict of interest.

If you put any case ever heard by the Court on the table, conflicts of interest can be found. If you don't think some Justices had conflicts of interest in the Gore V Bush case, you need to take some time and re-visit the case and some of the history. You consequently make claims about my supposed indefensible positions and eventually you hide from the truth.

When I press for clarity you fail to provide it. There are clear differences between general conflicts of interest, and perpetuating a fraud leading to the direct enrichment personally and/or of family members. When I asked for proof of how Thomas' spouses actions was a violation of the code, the point was dismissed.

Again, if you ever decide to get serious, let me know.

ace, its hard to get serious when you post such nonsense.

You clearly dont understand or are unwilling to acknowledge the difference between justices having known ideologies as opposes to justices with those known ideologies being paid by parties with similar ideologies.

Now you are claiming that any case put before the Court has conflicts of interest.

Tell me, ace, in the DC gun ban case, which justice was paid to speak at an event sponsored by the NRA or whose spouse works for the Brady Center?

In the Arizona decided this week regarding employers hiring illegal immigrants, which justice was paid to speak at an event sponsored by the AZ Chamber of Commerce or whose spouse works for an immigration advocacy organization?

You want me to get serious? Certainly, when you stop raising these bullshit assertions about conflict resulting from a presidential nomination, infringement of free speech of justices and/or spouses, alleging that all cases have conflicts of interest....

You do try one's patience with your nonsense, but I'm done with you on this one.

urville 05-26-2011 11:15 PM

Not a work, easier to convey thought...

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2904457)
When I press for clarity you fail to provide it. There are clear differences between general conflicts of interest, and perpetuating a fraud leading to the direct enrichment personally and/or of family members. When I asked for proof of how Thomas' spouses actions was a violation of the code, the point was dismissed.

She is involved in willfully supporting, through funding and lobbying action, the partisan attack on a piece of legislation already adopted. Couple with that her eyebrow raising comments. Weiner said it best, "His wife has already taken nearly $700,000 from health care opponents and now openly advertises herself as a crack lobbyist with the “experience and connections” to overturn the law of the land."

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2904457)
Again, if you ever decide to get serious, let me know.

Your hardly one to talk.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2904457)
You keep going back to the spouses activities.

She is relevant, as she was also involved. She makes some statements that raise questions for more than just a few people. They profit off of it at a decent level and he supposedly is ignorant to it all. It makes no difference to me what you believe. I see no issue in simply making sure everything is as it "appears to be" given the ramifications and odd behavior.


Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2904457)
Then be clear and say it in plain language. Judges and politicians, in your view should be held accountable for the behaviors of others. I disagree.

Now that i have time let me be clear. Judges and politicians should be held accountable for thier actions, actions of those they directly influence to act, or accomplices to the fact. They should also be held in regard of thier character not to exclude those they associate with and allow to influence them. This is not outside reason. Specifically in this case: If he tried to hide the activity, which means he willfully was doing so, he needs to step down. If he participated in it and/or he is one of the "connections" he needs to serve time. If he wasnt aware, which i find in this instance incredibly far fetched (impossible), then he must recuse himself from any cases regarding the constitutionality of the health care reform law. That is what i am saying. This is not selling a car, this is about money in politics, possible abuse of the justice system, etc. It raises questions that need to be answered.


Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2904457)
But, a judge does not represent clients they represent the Constitution and the laws of the land.

They dont really do "people" vs cases, however, what i was saying to clarify is that I cannot nor can she be in litigation against any client they represent because its a conflict of interest. He took an oath and your right about what he represents. This is all about legislation that will be determined lawful or not and whether it will be repealed. His involvement or lack of involvement, especially in light of statements made, in that lobbying needs to be revealed... investigated. She needs to prove her intent and meaning by that statement and he needs to prove that he was not involved, his position makes it an imperative. Either way at the very least he should not be sitting for any of those cases.

Everything else you said was either too subjective, loaded, nonsense, or just not worth addressing. Especially the multiple times you accused someone of something you were doing. Good luck with all of that.

aceventura3 05-27-2011 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2904496)
ace, its hard to get serious when you post such nonsense.

Hey DC,

Have you had a chance to actually think about Gore V Bush in context of an "appearance" of a conflict of interest and do you still stand by your statement that my bringing it up is nonsense?

On one hand you have the actions of a spouse involved as a private citizen in a cause that has not appeared in front of the court.

On the other we have...

Oh, let's see...perhaps a conversation that I am sure never happened but could have:

Thomas - Thank you President Bush for giving me the opportunity to realize my highest life long dream, if not for you I would have never gotten this opportunity, did I say of a life time? And did I say it is the one thing I have wanted the most in my life above everything else. I repeat something I value more than anything. You have helped me cement my legacy, I will go down in history - I am in your debt. Hell, I am not even qualified. Even in light of me sexually harassing Anita Hill, you stood with me. I love you more than life itself.

G.H.W. Bush - Some day and that day may never come (you may remember that from the God Father , an excellent movie i might add), I may ask you for a favor...

Fast forward to 2000 Gore V Bush comes along....and the rest is history!

First, I believe Thomas did what he thought was right, my point is regarding the "appearance" of a conflict of interest. You clearly don't get it. I do. I also understand the liberal agenda concerning Thomas and his spouse and it has nothing to do with the issues you pretend to be concerned about.

Quote:

You clearly dont understand or are unwilling to acknowledge the difference between justices having known ideologies as opposes to justices with those known ideologies being paid by parties with similar ideologies.
You can not tell me where you would draw the line, your position lacks clarity. Regarding Supreme Court Justices, I don't care how their spouses get paid or who pays them. Nor do I care how the Justices got paid in the past. Nor do I care if they get paid to give a speech. What I do care about is sound reasoning and Constitutionally based rulings. The "appearance" of conflicts of interest can not be avoided.

---------- Post added at 04:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:21 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by urville (Post 2904536)
Your hardly one to talk.

I think I understand your point of view, and we simply disagree.

I use humor, but within that humor are some very serious points. When people try to defend the indefensible or make charges without thinking the issue through, I enjoy having fun with it - sort of like when a cat toys with its prey. I do need to grow up. Perhaps I will start tomorrow.

roachboy 05-27-2011 10:54 AM

at the risk of bringing the thread back to it's topic and away from ace talking about himself....this editorial from the guardian gives a fair picture of the overall damage neo-liberalism has visited upon the united states, the irrational tax structure that has been foisted on us, the increasingly authoritarian political structure that neo-liberalism requires as its policies shred the socio-economic structure of the united states, and, within that, the role and problems of the current form of campaign finance:

After the crash: the pauperisation of middle-class America | Richard Wolff | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Baraka_Guru 05-27-2011 11:38 AM

It shouldn't come as a surprise that the natural conclusion of neoliberalism is a disproportionate distribution of wealth to the extent that it destabilizes the whole system.

No, it's not nothing new, but as with most things these days, you need to keep repeating it in hopes that it will stick. You need to keep repeating it to overcome the repetitious propaganda, which produces far too much interference.

aceventura3 05-31-2011 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2904635)
at the risk of bringing the thread back to it's topic and away from ace talking about himself....

Stop directing comments towards me. Focus on the issues and the issues will be discussed.

Quote:

this editorial from the guardian gives a fair picture of the overall damage neo-liberalism has visited upon the united states, the irrational tax structure that has been foisted on us, the increasingly authoritarian political structure that neo-liberalism requires as its policies shred the socio-economic structure of the united states, and, within that, the role and problems of the current form of campaign finance:

After the crash: the pauperisation of middle-class America | Richard Wolff | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
The author stated the following:

Quote:

The current global crisis of capitalism began with the severe contraction in the housing markets in mid 2007.
The housing contraction was the result the excessive speculation in the highly leveraged derivatives market. so from the beginning his premise is incorrect. And to blame the crisis on capitalism is also incorrect. The problem is with a select few trying to micromanage markets and the economy.

---------- Post added at 03:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:54 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru (Post 2904641)
It shouldn't come as a surprise that the natural conclusion of neoliberalism

What is "neoliberalism?" If you define it the way I suspect you and Roach would, I suspect the real problem is in this hybrid type economic model you have supported in other threads. And if "neoliberalism" is the problem, what is the solution?

Baraka_Guru 05-31-2011 08:26 AM

ace, take the most notoriously loathsome/controversial politicians in Canada on both the federal and provincial levels. Those are neoliberals. These are the politicians who do things like lower taxes and pay for it by dismantling healthcare and education, among other things.

If the "real problem" is an operational mixed economy over a conceptual free-market economy, then I suppose it's a problem in that it tends to get in the way of the desires of those who dream of a Friedmanesque utopia. Beyond that, I don't see how a mixed economy is any more problematic than unstable alternatives considered and even attempted via economic experimentation.

---------- Post added at 12:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:18 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2905227)
The housing contraction was the result the excessive speculation in the highly leveraged derivatives market. so from the beginning his premise is incorrect. And to blame the crisis on capitalism is also incorrect. The problem is with a select few trying to micromanage markets and the economy.

You're ignoring a number of other factors that made for this perfect storm. Speculation and the policies of government and central banks are only a few of several factors, and their level of impact is debatable. If you're going to correct a premise, you might want to be more comprehensive.

roachboy 05-31-2011 09:23 AM

the problem, ace, is that you (routinely) isolate factoids and then mangle them because your markety market metaphysics are too weak to allow anything else.

every time you do that, you evacuate the politics from political discussion and replace it with religion.

so instead of actual discussion there is just you nattering on about your inner world where the only necessary empirical correlate for a "belief" is the fact that you, apparently, believe it.

of course you're wrong about the housing crisis. you're wrong about it like you're wrong, materially, about almost everything else you address.

and the ways in which you're wrong are fundamental.

but to have a discussion would entail that there be some reasonable expectation that a discussion is possible.

and that you've entirely undermined.

aceventura3 05-31-2011 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru (Post 2905235)
ace, take the most notoriously loathsome/controversial politicians in Canada on both the federal and provincial levels. Those are neoliberals. These are the politicians who do things like lower taxes and pay for it by dismantling healthcare and education, among other things.

Then I don't understand the difference between a neoliberal and a fiscal conservative, a free market conservative or a Reagan conservative, are they all the same in your view?

Quote:

If the "real problem" is an operational mixed economy over a conceptual free-market economy, then I suppose it's a problem in that it tends to get in the way of the desires of those who dream of a Friedmanesque utopia. Beyond that, I don't see how a mixed economy is any more problematic than unstable alternatives considered and even attempted via economic experimentation.
The author cited by Roach describes problems that stem from a mixed economy. I don't understand what the author wants, nor do I understand what you want.

I also read an article by Krugman today, he complained about American politicians falling in the trap of believing that nothing can be done about unemployment (of course blaming Republicans for this condition) but not saying what needs to be done. I find his positions pretty convenient, he always complains about an economic issue but rarely offers real solutions.

Quote:

You're ignoring a number of other factors that made for this perfect storm. Speculation and the policies of government and central banks are only a few of several factors, and their level of impact is debatable. If you're going to correct a premise, you might want to be more comprehensive.
I responded to a simplistic presentation of our economic condition in a simplistic manner. I don't ignore the complexities and many factors. The author cited was blatantly wrong.

---------- Post added at 09:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:18 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2905250)
the problem, ace, is that you (routinely) isolate factoids and then mangle them because your markety market metaphysics are too weak to allow anything else.

Rather than making this about me, set the record straight.

Quote:

every time you do that, you evacuate the politics from political discussion and replace it with religion.
I stated that the author of the article you cited was operating on a factually incorrect premise. What is your response to that? Gee!

Your guy is a simpleton! He does not know what he is talking about! That is what I present to you. You cited this guy for a reason, defend him! But you can't and we know it. So write some gobbledy gook about me, been there done that. Then if I respond, defending myself, more gooledy gook about me with a complaint about how I always make it about me - been there and done that too.

The reality is that your guy (author cited) has a political agenda that has nothing to do with truth, he simply wants to shape public opinion and will do what it takes to accomplish his goal, even use misdirection. Did you really believe our economic crisis was the result of housing prices collapsing?

roachboy 05-31-2011 04:18 PM

you don't know what neo-liberalism is.
any rational person would have done a search.
but you didn't.
because it's too much work.
so was reading the article.
which you didn't.

aceventura3 06-01-2011 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2905356)
you don't know what neo-liberalism is.
any rational person would have done a search.

I believe my problem is in the way the term is used by you and others. It often does not fit the text book definition when it it used here. I also suspect when you use the term you are referring to one thing and when others use it they are referring to something else.

This is a discussion board it is very appropriate to ask people to clarify the terms and concepts being used.


Quote:

but you didn't.
You do not know what I do and what I don't do within the context of a question.

Quote:

because it's too much work.
I often start reading something you write or something written by a source you provide, and if it clearly starts off with a faulty premise I will usually stop reading in detail and scan the remaining looking for some rationale for the faulty premise, as I did in the article you most recently cited here. Your guy is clearly wrong and did not provide any support for his faulty premise. The laziness is on his part and on your part - he could have very easily presented an accurate characterization of the economic crisis and went on to his other points - but he did not and you got caught providing something you did not vet. Before making your charges against others, look in a mirror.

Quote:

so was reading the article.
which you didn't.
In my first response I stated what the problem with the article was, you have refused to address that and instead direct attacks toward me personally. Be careful, I may breakout a series of analogies or start responding with my dry uninspired humor.

Or, even sarcasm.

Have a nice day.:thumbsup:

roachboy 06-01-2011 08:15 AM

because, ace, your criticisms of the article were so fatuous as to not merit a serious response.

it's just another example of how you violate the basic rules of a political discussion.

you'd be better off blogging. we all would be better off.

aceventura3 06-01-2011 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2905521)
because, ace, your criticisms of the article were so fatuous as to not merit a serious response.

Yes, yes, you have made it clear that I am not in your intellectual league. One should never expect a reasoned response to a person like me from a person like you.

Quote:

it's just another example of how you violate the basic rules of a political discussion.
I can honestly say I don't have a copy of those basic rules, do you have a link?

Quote:

you'd be better off blogging. we all would be better off.
Feel free to ignore me anytime you would like.

Getting back to this neo-liberalism business:

Do you consider Obama to be a neo-liberal?

Given that I don't expect an answer from you, I assume your answer is - yes.

Based on the presumed answer:

What is the difference, to you, in the first term neo-liberalism of Obama and Reagan, if any?

I am going to assume your answer is that there is no difference in practical terms.

Given your presumed answers, I suspect you are in the smallest of small minority who hold such a view and you know it. Hence, when you use the term neo-liberalism you knowingly disguise your true meaning to get unsuspecting people to agree with your extreme views.

Nailed it didn't I?

http://venturebeat.com/wp-content/up.../nailed_it.jpg

roachboy 06-01-2011 11:48 AM

awesome, ace.
so let's go through the steps, shall we?
you demonstrably don't know what you're talking about materially.
you demonstrably didn't understand the article linked above.
you still don't know what neo-liberalism is.
therefore i am a communist.

you must have really tied yr thinkin cap on tight for that one.

Baraka_Guru 06-01-2011 12:25 PM

What does it mean when someone with extreme views says you have disagreeable extreme views?

What does it all mean?

roachboy 06-01-2011 12:41 PM

i am not sure what it all means.

aceventura3 06-01-2011 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2905570)
awesome, ace.
so let's go through the steps, shall we?
you demonstrably don't know what you're talking about materially.
you demonstrably didn't understand the article linked above.
you still don't know what neo-liberalism is.
therefore i am a communist.

Where did the communist thing come from? I don't know what you are, I don't know what you stand for, I don't know what you would be willing to fight for. My gut tells me that you are comfortable simply being an intellectual unwilling to take a stand on anything.

Quote:

you must have really tied yr thinkin cap on tight for that one.
I try to understand you and your point of view. All my effort has gotten me is ridicule. The funny thing about this is you really believe that the problem with us communicating is me.

---------- Post added at 10:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:00 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru (Post 2905579)
What does it mean when someone with extreme views says you have disagreeable extreme views?

I did not say his views where disagreeable. I would actually have more respect for him if he took definitive stances for something. all he does is take shots at what he is against.

Quote:

What does it all mean?
You can not clearly define what a neo-liberal is - that is what it means.

dc_dux 06-01-2011 02:10 PM

The IRS may be moving to offer some small measure of reform by looking more closely at organizations that are abusing their 501(c)(4) non-profit status requiring that such organizations NOT be primarily for the purpose of political advocacy.

The impact would be significant in that groups like Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS and the Koch Brother's Americans for Prosperity would be required to pay taxes on income and contributors would be required to pay a 35% gift tax on their contributions and could no longer hide under the cover of anonymity.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_866428.html

Baraka_Guru 06-01-2011 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2905598)
You can not clearly define what a neo-liberal is - that is what it means.

It all depends on what your meaning of means means.

aceventura3 06-01-2011 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru (Post 2905618)
It all depends on what your meaning of means means.

Your question was what does it all mean, I will explain. There is a technical definition of neo-liberal, the given meaning. Then there is a practical definition of neo-liberal, the meaning assigned in the context of actual conversation. My personal view on "meaning" is, of course, some what digital or mathematical. so, neo-liberal only has real meaning to me relative to something. I need a comparison to understand both the technical and practical definitions.

I have read a bit of what Roach has written, and I believe he views that there is little or no difference between Republican conservatives and Democrat liberals.

I have also read much of what you have written here and I believe you view that there are vast differences between R conservatives and D liberals. So, when you both use the term neo-liberal it begs the questions I have been asking.

My confusion is real. Anyone who has actually read what you two have written would have the same questions.

I was always the kid in class who would actual ask the teacher/professor the obvious (often viewed as silly) question, that everyone else was to embarrassed to ask but were actually as confused as I was. I would often ask my silly question and see others make their funny faces, which would change when the depth of the most simple and basic questions lead to much greater understanding of the topic at hand. My persistence is both a blessing and a curse.

---------- Post added at 12:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:46 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2905600)
The IRS may be moving to offer some small measure of reform by looking more closely at organizations that are abusing their 501(c)(4) non-profit status requiring that such organizations NOT be primarily for the purpose of political advocacy.

The impact would be significant in that groups like Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS and the Koch Brother's Americans for Prosperity would be required to pay taxes on income and contributors would be required to pay a 35% gift tax on their contributions and could no longer hide under the cover of anonymity.

IRS To Take On Karl Rove? Tax Laws Could Take A Bite Out Of Secret Political Spending

Although I believe the NAACP is a 501(c)(3), what do you think the potential impact on an organization like the NCAAP will be? Are we looking at an unintended consequence? Are we looking at selective action based on political motives? Is that an abuse of power, if true? do you think the NAACP has been careful enough to stay on the correct side of the political line? Would you support an investigation? Why/why not?

So many questions to consider on this issue! No need to tell me how silly my questions are, I know what you think about me already. but if interested in addressing the points being raised, I am interested in your views on those points.

roachboy 06-01-2011 05:23 PM

ace. want to know how simple this is? you are a neo-liberal ideologically. no need to think real hard. you aren't one politically because you're a true believer. one of those chumps who thinks this nonsense obtains. it's funny.

politically, neo-liberalism is a different beast--it's patently about consolidating power in the hands of conservative factions within the plutocracy. deregulation blah blah blah---de facto instruments of consolidation of power.

the actions of the supreme court in erasing barriers to corporate money in political campaigns are patently an extension of neo-liberal politics. the need for campaign finance reform is obvious in the face of neo-liberal domination since reagan.

i could go on, but it's a waste of my time.

suffice it to say that the fact that neo-liberalism as an ideology refers to people like you and that you were unable to figure it out is beyond amazing.

well, it would be for anyone else.

dc_dux 06-01-2011 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2905635)
...Although I believe the NAACP is a 501(c)(3), what do you think the potential impact on an organization like the NCAAP will be? Are we looking at an unintended consequence? Are we looking at selective action based on political motives? Is that an abuse of power, if true? do you think the NAACP has been careful enough to stay on the correct side of the political line? Would you support an investigation? Why/why not?

So many questions to consider on this issue! No need to tell me how silly my questions are, I know what you think about me already. but if interested in addressing the points being raised, I am interested in your views on those points.

ace, you are confusing (c)(3) and (c)(4) organizations and the manner in which they can engage in issue advocacy/education.

I would support the IRS enforcing a strict standard for (c)(4) organizations, whether it is the work of the Koch Brothers or George Soros. They should not have tax exempt status if their primary mission and the expenditure of the majority of their funds is to engage in partisan politics. And their donors should be taxed and lose the shield of anonymity.

If you believe that Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS organization is to promote social welfare (requirement for a c4) rather than electing Republicans, then you are just demonstrating more rigid ideology.

Please, no more questions to deflect the issue. Deal with the facts for once.

ottopilot 06-01-2011 08:01 PM

Congratulations aceventura3... You've been LABELED!! (...by those who know best)

To commemorate the bestowing of "NEO-LIBERAL" as your officially administered stereotype, we at the American Political Monoculture wish to welcome you by offering this free membership.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2551/...5e692231_m.jpg

There's strength in membership and remember our motto...

"a stereotype is a terrible thing to waste"

roachboy 06-02-2011 06:00 AM

have you read any of ace's posts, otto?
like ever?

jesus.
it's like there's a stupidity contest going on.

Baraka_Guru 06-02-2011 06:45 AM

Neoliberals aren't home-schooled. They don't watch fucking Fox News and NASCAR.

Shit. :shakehead:

Neoliberals are those guys who are educated by the Chicago school and worship at the Church of Reagan. They're the guys who think objectivism is a viable social framework. They're the guys who think the market knows best, so just kindly get out of its way.

The market will make things right and anything that gets in the market's way is the source of all of society's problems.

All of them.

aceventura3 06-02-2011 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2905646)
ace. want to know how simple this is? you are a neo-liberal ideologically. no need to think real hard. you aren't one politically because you're a true believer. one of those chumps who thinks this nonsense obtains. it's funny.

politically, neo-liberalism is a different beast--it's patently about consolidating power in the hands of conservative factions within the plutocracy. deregulation blah blah blah---de facto instruments of consolidation of power.

Plutocracy??? I have no interest in consolidated power or rule by a few weather that be by political or financial power. My cause is against big government and against big business -both work against individual freedom. It appears you are mixing political ideologies. You think clarify your view is a waste of time, but I would suggest you do take some time to clarify your views.

Quote:

the actions of the supreme court in erasing barriers to corporate money in political campaigns are patently an extension of neo-liberal politics. the need for campaign finance reform is obvious in the face of neo-liberal domination since reagan.
Again, money has less influence than you think it has. For example, Obama is not beholden to any big money special interest group. He does not need the oil industry, pharmaceutical industry, health care industry, auto in order to finance his campaign. He needs the votes of big labor. He needs an army of volunteers and an organization to get out the vote. He needs a cooperative and sympathetic media. So tell me, how has or how will money influence Obama's political behavior? It won't. Money is not his motivator, so what is your explanation?

---------- Post added at 03:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:40 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2905669)
ace, you are confusing (c)(3) and (c)(4) organizations and the manner in which they can engage in issue advocacy/education.

Please stop trying to tell me I am confused. I know the difference. And I know the NAACP walks a fine line and perhaps crosses it regularly. There are more similarities between the (c)(3) AND (c)(4) than there are differences, in fact assuming a set of people who actually know what they are, few of those could tell you the important differences.

Quote:

I would support the IRS enforcing a strict standard for (c)(4) organizations, whether it is the work of the Koch Brothers or George Soros. They should not have tax exempt status if their primary mission and the expenditure of the majority of their funds is to engage in partisan politics. And their donors should be taxed and lose the shield of anonymity.
Well, you have to explain what makes an issue partisan. It may be no fault of an organization if a social welfare issue they promote becomes partisan. And even if it does become partisan does that negate the real intent of the organization? I think not. I am very uncomfortable with bureaucrats having the kind of power you seem to want them to have.

Quote:

If you believe that Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS organization is to promote social welfare (requirement for a c4) rather than electing Republicans, then you are just demonstrating more rigid ideology.
I think the problem is in the law. A person like Rove can easily exploit the intent of the law and be in compliance. In these circumstances I agree the law has to be changed, but I doubt I would agree with you regarding how to do it. I think such laws unfairly restrict those who do not have Rove's resources. These laws hinder real grass-roots political activities.

Quote:

Please, no more questions to deflect the issue. Deal with the facts for once.
My questions do no deflect the issue. I ask you to understand the broader context of what you advocate for, there is a difference. You rarely show an understanding of unintended consequences or a vision of what is beyond what is directly in front of you. You should welcome and encourage my questions. Given that you don't, it reflects a closed mind on your part.

---------- Post added at 04:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:59 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot (Post 2905684)
Congratulations aceventura3... You've been LABELED!! (...by those who know best)

To commemorate the bestowing of "NEO-LIBERAL" as your officially administered stereotype, we at the American Political Monoculture wish to welcome you by offering this free membership.

Thank, you, it is with great honor that I accept membership as a stereotypical NEO-LIBERAL.

If we can find two people who actually agree on what a neo-liberal is, now that will be real progress.

roachboy 06-02-2011 08:04 AM

ace--did you actually read my fucking post? did you?

never mind. it doesn't matter.

it really does appear that there's a stupidity contest going on.

aceventura3 06-02-2011 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2905779)
have you read any of ace's posts, otto?
like ever?

jesus.
it's like there's a stupidity contest going on.

Am I:

http://www.shirtaday.com/pastShirts/WINNING.jpg

---------- Post added at 04:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:05 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru (Post 2905787)
Neoliberals aren't home-schooled. They don't watch fucking Fox News and NASCAR.

Shit. :shakehead:

Neoliberals are those guys who are educated by the Chicago school and worship at the Church of Reagan. They're the guys who think objectivism is a viable social framework. They're the guys who think the market knows best, so just kindly get out of its way.

The market will make things right and anything that gets in the market's way is the source of all of society's problems.

All of them.

Just to be clear. When I talk about "markets" I am talking about the collection of individuals who make up the "market". So, if neo-liberalism is about power in the hands of individuals - then I am 100% on-board with it. What is the opposite of a neo-liberal and what are you?

---------- Post added at 04:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:09 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2905813)
ace--did you actually read my fucking post? did you?

Yes. Did you read my response?

Ignoring being called a chump (I educate my son to avoid name calling and use arguments to make his points, because name calling reflects an inability to actually construct an argument - a good lesson to learn...as a child), to suggest I support plutocracy, suggests you have no clue regarding my beliefs or the beliefs of those I support politically.

Baraka_Guru 06-02-2011 08:21 AM

ace, there is no easy opposite. It generally would be any proponent of a mixed economy and a government system that supports to some extent social liberal policies. This is in response to the very idea that unregulated markets are a good idea, that labour exploitation is okay, that the environment only matters insofar to the maximal wealth that it can generate, etc.

I'm more or less a social democrat, which is one of the positions that would oppose neoliberalism. The idea that those with capital should have far-reaching power over society almost exclusively via their profit motive and their risk ignorance/aversion is abhorrent to me. This isn't a conscious power; it's a power that's both amoral and irrational.

It's not exactly the kind of thing well suited to govern a society, despite the fictional warnings you may have read in Atlas Shrugged. I prefer societies to be governed based on the principles of representative democracy, preferably a form untainted by the corruption of wealth.

roachboy 06-02-2011 09:15 AM

in a very short post, i distinguished between the reality-optional views of true believers in neo-liberalism such as ace here

from the more complicated realities that neo-liberals have advanced/are enmeshed in once they get into power.

once in power, neo-liberal politicians tend to continue talking the same way but use it largely as a screen for enacting policies that advance the interests of conservative segments of the american plutocracy.

you know, the military procurement system, the prison-industrial system, the surveillance apparatus, the instruments of state repression, war if they can get away with it. all good for conservative business.

this is intertwined with conservative political organizations which operate in a similar manner: american conservative organizations care about power and little else. the ideology of neo-liberalism is transparently a screen for them behind which the political interests (getting power, holding onto power, undermining whomever holds power that is not them) and economic interests (the patronage systems that benefit from conservative-style politics tend to support the political interests that advance those interests)


there weren't that many sentences in the post.
it's baffling that ace managed to fuck it up.


an aside:

here's a good recent book that outlines (again) the fiasco that neo-liberalism has wrought

http://www.versobooks.com/books/105-contours-of-descent

that is comprehensive enough to link, as the guardian article does above, the corrosion of political autonomy to the damage inflicted by neo-liberalism, particularly across the clinton and bush 2 periods.

of course, to acknowledge that would require some critical reflexivity.
so i expect no response that makes any sense from the reality-optional set.
plus it's a book.

gulp.

Baraka_Guru 06-02-2011 09:24 AM

What you point out, roachboy, is what largely distinguishes neoliberalism from libertarianism. (For those who may need it pointed out.)

dc_dux 06-02-2011 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2905804)

Please stop trying to tell me I am confused. I know the difference. And I know the NAACP walks a fine line and perhaps crosses it regularly. There are more similarities between the (c)(3) AND (c)(4) than there are differences, in fact assuming a set of people who actually know what they are, few of those could tell you the important differences.

Well, you have to explain what makes an issue partisan. It may be no fault of an organization if a social welfare issue they promote becomes partisan. And even if it does become partisan does that negate the real intent of the organization? I think not. I am very uncomfortable with bureaucrats having the kind of power you seem to want them to have.

I think the problem is in the law. A person like Rove can easily exploit the intent of the law and be in compliance. In these circumstances I agree the law has to be changed, but I doubt I would agree with you regarding how to do it. I think such laws unfairly restrict those who do not have Rove's resources. These laws hinder real grass-roots political activities.

My questions do no deflect the issue. I ask you to understand the broader context of what you advocate for, there is a difference. You rarely show an understanding of unintended consequences or a vision of what is beyond what is directly in front of you. You should welcome and encourage my questions. Given that you don't, it reflects a closed mind on your part

'
ace...perhaps you are not confused, just ignorant of the issue and the distinct difference between a c3 and a c4 or

And, one again, using that ignorance to pose hypotheticals and inane questions so that you can continue to ignore the facts.

What is a partisan issue? WTF? How about when you spend $millions solely promoting one party when you are supposed to be a social welfare oriented organization and not promote candidates or parties. Damn, dude, what can be more partisan than that?

I give up, ace. You dont want to discuss the issues...you want to deflect the discussion away from any solution with which you dont agree, ignoring any facts you dont like and that get in the way of your extremist ideology.

---------- Post added at 06:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:42 PM ----------

IMO, you consistently put artificial roadblocks in the way of nearly every discussion rather than honestly address the issues and facts presented.

I think it is unfortunate for the community, but it too will survive.

aceventura3 06-07-2011 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2905835)
it's baffling that ace managed to fuck it up.

You consistently demonstrate an inability to defend your positions and hide that behind personal attack. You make a mockery of those who want to partake in a serious exchange on this board.

---------- Post added at 04:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:59 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru (Post 2905836)
What you point out, roachboy, is what largely distinguishes neoliberalism from libertarianism. (For those who may need it pointed out.)

You do not share the same definition of neo-liberalism as Roach. Did you need me to point that out?

---------- Post added at 04:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:01 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2905897)
ace...perhaps you are not confused, just ignorant of the issue and the distinct difference between a c3 and a c4 or

And, one again, using that ignorance to pose hypotheticals and inane questions so that you can continue to ignore the facts.

I would suggest you do more home work on the subject, my gut tells me that you hang up on what amounts to a trivial difference precludes your understanding of the full consequences of what you support.

Quote:

What is a partisan issue? WTF? How about when you spend $millions solely promoting one party when you are supposed to be a social welfare oriented organization and not promote candidates or parties. Damn, dude, what can be more partisan than that?
Again, you don't get it. If I give you an example to try to help you understand - I get your standard come back.

For those who do get it - promoting social welfare is directly related to supporting those in political power who share similar views on social welfare. It is an exercise in nothingness to have a social welfare agenda and not be politically active. If you want to save the whales, you support those in politics who want to save the whales. If you want to end racial discrimination, you support those in political power who want to end racism. Smart people will study the rules of the game and play that game to win.

Quote:

I give up, ace.
I really don't care. Your error is in trying to persuade me to your narrow views. I will tell you, once you see the world from the perspective of an eagle, the view of a roach (pun intended) has no appeal.

Baraka_Guru 06-07-2011 08:18 AM

ace, neoliberalism is a broad concept.

If you want a dictionary definition, it represents a kind of liberalism bent towards a laissez-faire philosophy. But dictionary definitions are only so useful. Encyclopedic entries are a bit more useful. Neither are a be-all or end-all of anything.

Though I do sympathize with your need to have everything cut, dried, and stored in little boxes that are clearly labelled, not allowed to touch one another, and kept stowed away from the real world.

aceventura3 06-07-2011 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru (Post 2906790)
ace, neoliberalism is a broad concept.

Why all the mockery of my questions then? Re-read the posts on this topic. I don't need any sympathy - I point out that you and roach sit back nodding in unison, when you clearly don't see the issue presented the way he does. And even to this moment, you two can not acknowledge your differing views although they are obvious to anyone who has read what you two have written. It is not about me, as much as you two want to pretend that it is.

Baraka_Guru 06-07-2011 09:28 AM

Regarding your questions: they are usually posed as a way to sidetrack the conversation.

I think you tend to ask questions when you either a) don't agree with the premise, or b) can't defend your own position. Sometimes it's c) you don't understand something. But I don't think this is usually the case.

You ask questions as a way to turn the conversation into something about you or about something you'd rather talk about.

It's a bit distracting, so forgive me if I respond to your questions in ways that either nip something in the bud or otherwise keep the topic on course.

In case you haven't noticed, this isn't a thread about neoliberalism and what it means to the world.

If you don't know what neoliberalism is, then look it up. If you disagree with anyone's position about neoliberalism, then challenge it.

Be forthright about it for fuck's sake. But I'm not sure that will even matter, considering roachboy's not sure you even read his posts.

aceventura3 06-07-2011 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru (Post 2906807)
Regarding your questions: they are usually posed as a way to sidetrack the conversation.

You posted this:

Quote:

It shouldn't come as a surprise that the natural conclusion of neoliberalism is a disproportionate distribution of wealth to the extent that it destabilizes the whole system.
Read more: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/newrepl...#ixzz1Oc8vra6a

In the context of this thread and what you and Roach have posted in the past I simply asked what is neo-liberalism?

Not hardly a side track!

Quote:

I think you tend to ask questions when you either a) don't agree with the premise, or b) can't defend your own position. Sometimes it's c) you don't understand something. But I don't think this is usually the case.
Item B is incorrect. I always have a defense for my position. And when my position is emotion based or simply a gut feeling I will clearly say so.

Quote:

You ask questions as a way to turn the conversation into something about you or about something you'd rather talk about.
What is neo-liberalism as a question, is about me? I never introduced this vague, il-defined concept in any thread. Wrong again.

Quote:

It's a bit distracting, so forgive me if I respond to your questions in ways that either nip something in the bud or otherwise keep the topic on course.
Thinking outside your box is distracting, I understand. I agree that many find challenging the limits of what they believe to be true or looking at an issue from a different perspective can be pretty uncomfortable. Is your only purpose here to validate what you already think?

Do you not realize the level of your intolerance to those who attempt to challenge your strongly held conventions? you do not mock to the level of some here, but you do partake in it. Are you unaware of your intolerance? Do you find it acceptable? If I am in fact every negative thing that you believe, are you handling the situation in the best possible way, are others?

Quote:

In case you haven't noticed, this isn't a thread about neoliberalism and what it means to the world.
I did not introduce that concept into this thread, did I?

Quote:

If you don't know what neoliberalism is, then look it up. If you disagree with anyone's position about neoliberalism, then challenge it.
I will say it again.

You and Roach have different views on neo-liberalism.

That is my challenge statement to you and Roach. Prove I am wrong, and I move on. You can not, but for some reason can not say so, why?

Quote:

Be forthright about it for fuck's sake. But I'm not sure that will even matter, considering roachboy's not sure you even read his posts.
I have read plenty of what Roach writes and some of the sources he has provided. He has never responded in a mature fashion to questions or responses. I no longer take his posts seriously. I thought that had been made clear a long time ago. All I will ever do with a Roach post is to take some extreme, illogical or indefensible portion of it, and point that out. I recall telling him that at one time or another, and I have also offered to engage in a serious discussion if he ever chooses to do so. Yet, the personal attacks never stop, so I give a few in return here and there. Pretty sophomoric, isn't it? At least I know when and why I do it.

Baraka_Guru 06-07-2011 10:24 AM

ace, you're doing it again.

As soon as you take a position, offer me your perspective.

Until then, you have none. Until then, all you have are your presumptions and accusations.

I'm not going to hold your hand.

aceventura3 06-07-2011 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru (Post 2906830)
ace, you're doing it again.

As soon as you take a position, offer me your perspective.

Until then, you have none. Until then, all you have are your presumptions and accusations.

I'm not going to hold your hand.

I certainly don't need hand holding. I simply point out the obvious contradictions in what I see.

Please go back to your neo-liberalism thing along with the absurd notion that conservatives don't accept science or whatever that was in another thread. My position becomes clearer - there is absolutely no need to try to engage those who hold such narrow and absurd points of view. Just understand that the trends are clear - things are moving in my direction. If I were you, I would want to understand why.

Baraka_Guru 06-07-2011 10:45 AM

Cryptic clear as always, ace.

I see a bunch of contradictions in what you write too, but I'm not going to tell you what they are.

You think that things are moving in your direction, but the truth is you're going the wrong way.

I'm surprised you haven't noticed it yet. I think you're now my favourite progressive.

roachboy 06-07-2011 12:32 PM

wikipedia, ace. first stop of the intellectually lazy. you should know all about it:

Neoliberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

here's a better place to start:

Oxford University Press: A Brief History of Neoliberalism: David Harvey


[edited]

dc_dux 06-07-2011 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2906781)
...I would suggest you do more home work on the subject, my gut tells me that you hang up on what amounts to a trivial difference precludes your understanding of the full consequences of what you support.

Again, you don't get it. If I give you an example to try to help you understand - I get your standard come back.

For those who do get it - promoting social welfare is directly related to supporting those in political power who share similar views on social welfare. It is an exercise in nothingness to have a social welfare agenda and not be politically active. If you want to save the whales, you support those in politics who want to save the whales. If you want to end racial discrimination, you support those in political power who want to end racism. Smart people will study the rules of the game and play that game to win....

ace, I've been working for (c)(3)s and (c)(4)s for 20+ years, depending on whether I was on the lobbying side or the research/program side. I do know a little something about how they work and what restrictions are involved.

And I am still appalled but not surprised that you would try to rationalize campaign contributions solely to one party as a non-partisan social welfare activity.

Willravel 06-07-2011 03:38 PM

DC, are there any 501s fighting for campaign finance reform you're familiar with and might suggest supporting? I've got a bit of money I'd like to donate to a good cause.

ottopilot 06-07-2011 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru (Post 2905787)
Neoliberals aren't home-schooled. They don't watch fucking Fox News and NASCAR.

Shit. :shakehead:

Neoliberals are those guys who are educated by the Chicago school and worship at the Church of Reagan. They're the guys who think objectivism is a viable social framework. They're the guys who think the market knows best, so just kindly get out of its way.

The market will make things right and anything that gets in the market's way is the source of all of society's problems.

All of them.

No shit... You totally missed the point. Name-calling is still name-calling no matter how deep some lurk in their thesaurus gathering enlightened-sounding barbs to mask their intellectual limits or emotional shortcomings.

Oh yeah... the membership-card. I remember being assigned membership to the conservative wing of the American Political Monoculture by roachboy. He does know best! So I created the card (check out this blast from the past).
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-...ml#post2531584
So yes, Nascar and Home Skooled may not apply here. I didn't have time, nor the interest in creating a new card. Name -calling is still name-calling (or is that bigotry?) It all seems so fresh and familiar. Not much really changes around here does it?

... was that a tumbleweed that just blew by? nope...just another cheap-shot (neo-liberalism) disguised as "informed".

Baraka_Guru 06-07-2011 05:11 PM

Hm. I guess I did miss your point. (I think I still do.)

But I suppose we're now even, because you missed mine.

roachboy 06-07-2011 05:24 PM

it's typically better, otto dear, if you get all huffy about "name-calling" in a situation where it's actually happening. i have lots of other, better names i would call you and ace. most of them i don't use here. but in 3-d you'd definitely know. o yes you would.

dc_dux 06-07-2011 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2906912)
DC, are there any 501s fighting for campaign finance reform you're familiar with and might suggest supporting? I've got a bit of money I'd like to donate to a good cause.

The best and biggest is probably Common Cause. It is a 501 org that lobbies - issue advocacy - but does not endorse or contribute to candidates or parties. ( I dont think ace understands the difference between issue advocacy and contributions to candidates/parties.) BTW, because it is a lobbying organization, donations are NOT tax deductible.

It is great grass roots lobbying organization that focuses on campaign finance reform...

Campaign Finance Reform - Common Cause

... greater transparency and accountability in govt and other issues.

Now, I'll just wait for ace or otto to jump in and scream George Soros!

It is well known that Soros is a contributor to Common Cause because of its transparency in identify contributors unlike Rove's organization in which contributors can hide behind a cloak of anonymity. Most of its money comes from the 400,000 members that are just regular citizens like you and me.

Willravel 06-07-2011 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2906946)
The best and biggest is probably Common Cause. It is a 501 org that lobbies - issue advocacy - but does not endorse or contribute to candidates or parties. ( I dont think ace understands the difference between issue advocacy and contributions to candidates/parties.) BTW, because it is a lobbying organization, donations are NOT tax deductible.

You forget... I like paying taxes. :thumbsup:

I'm relatively familiar with Common Cause because of Beck's Soros rants, but for whatever reason it never occurred to me to look into donating. It seems fantastic. Thanks very much!

aceventura3 06-09-2011 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2906866)
wikipedia, ace. first stop of the intellectually lazy. you should know all about it:

Neoliberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

here's a better place to start:

Oxford University Press: A Brief History of Neoliberalism: David Harvey


[edited]

You don't even use the concept of neo-liberalism in the proper context of the author you cite.

Quote:

By DAVID HARVEY

Does this crisis signal the end of neo-liberalism? My answer is that it depends what you mean by neo-liberalism. My interpretation is that it’s a class project, masked by a lot of neo-liberal rhetoric about individual freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, privatisation and the free market. These were means, however, towards the restoration and consolidation of class power, and that neo-liberal project has been fairly successful.

One of the basic principles that was set up in the 1970s was that state power should protect financial institutions at all costs. This is the principle that was worked out in New York City crisis in the mid-1970s, and was first defined internationally when Mexico threatened to go bankrupt in 1982. This would have destroyed the New York investment banks, so the US Treasury and the IMF combined to bail Mexico out. But in so doing they mandated austerity for the Mexican population. In other words they protected the banks and destroyed the people, and this has been the standard practice in the IMF ever since. The current bailout is the same old story, one more time, except bigger.
David Harvey: Is This Really the End of Neoliberalism?

Free market capitalists nor I supported the protection of financial institution through government bailouts, the most recent ones or those done in the past. True free market capitalists would have allowed financial institutors who took excessive highly leveraged risk fail. True free market capitalists would have allowed big corporate operations like GM fail, there would not have been any bailouts.

Your mixed use of the concept of neo-liberalism is confused and you confuse others. I hold the belief that you do this purposefully. Because I call you on it, you find my posts intolerable.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:53 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360