Alinsky was your heroes mentor, he wrote the rules for the left.
Supreme Court Justice Paid Off
- Thread starter Jim Craik
- Start date
Hahahaha. Nice one Damian. An honest post! :thumbsup:
Supreme Court Justice Paid Off
You don't have any proof, you made this up to to be noticed. I'll go back to the weather.
Overcast and chilly. Better browse through the book for more guidance Jim. Adios!
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Al, several thing are apparent with you.
(1) Just Google Clarence Thomes, you will see many many articles about this. You say I made this up! Lie!!!
(2) You will never believe anything that shows one of you beloved concevatives doing wrong. Just look at the approval ratings. The only approval ratings falling faster than Thomas are Palin and the tea party. Someone believes this!
(3) You will never answer any questions. I answer your questions, you only muddy the waters. Then again when the only answer you can give proves my point, I can see why you refuse!
(4) Talking with you is a waste of time.
Al,
I went back over the posts in this thread, I'm sure that what I have said had nothing to do with their thoughts, but here is a list of folks on our beloved site that have posted their thoughts and shown dissaproval for Mr Thomas's actions.
Graham: What I find disturbing is that the "Republicans" on here don't condemn it
Damian: "is it wrong he!! yes"
Nick: :thumbsup:<!-- google_ad_section_end -->
Doug: SHAME ON YOU, Clarence Tomas, and SHAME ON YOU to all who would defend his actions in this matter
Terry: I can’t tell you how disappointed I am in this,
RonR: "I can't believe how disapointed I am in this"
Mesa: If he lied, if he broke the law he should be ejected. No if ands or buts.<!-- google_ad_section_end -->
Cliff: the law is clear, the disclosure forms are simple, and Justice Thomas chose to break the law.
Mark Worthinton: "no excuse for Clarence Thomas"
Me
Al, You say I have no proof! You say I made this up!
What do you say to these folks?
I really do not expect you to answer!
(1) Just Google Clarence Thomes, you will see many many articles about this. You say I made this up! Lie!!!
(2) You will never believe anything that shows one of you beloved concevatives doing wrong. Just look at the approval ratings. The only approval ratings falling faster than Thomas are Palin and the tea party. Someone believes this!
(3) You will never answer any questions. I answer your questions, you only muddy the waters. Then again when the only answer you can give proves my point, I can see why you refuse!
(4) Talking with you is a waste of time.
Al,
I went back over the posts in this thread, I'm sure that what I have said had nothing to do with their thoughts, but here is a list of folks on our beloved site that have posted their thoughts and shown dissaproval for Mr Thomas's actions.
Graham: What I find disturbing is that the "Republicans" on here don't condemn it
Damian: "is it wrong he!! yes"
Nick: :thumbsup:<!-- google_ad_section_end -->
Doug: SHAME ON YOU, Clarence Tomas, and SHAME ON YOU to all who would defend his actions in this matter
Terry: I can’t tell you how disappointed I am in this,
RonR: "I can't believe how disapointed I am in this"
Mesa: If he lied, if he broke the law he should be ejected. No if ands or buts.<!-- google_ad_section_end -->
Cliff: the law is clear, the disclosure forms are simple, and Justice Thomas chose to break the law.
Mark Worthinton: "no excuse for Clarence Thomas"
Me
Al, You say I have no proof! You say I made this up!
What do you say to these folks?
I really do not expect you to answer!
Last edited:
You know, Jim, the thing that has bothered me ALMOST as much as SCJ Thomas's failure to disclose his wife's non-interest income (notwithstanding the propensity of certain conservatively-oriented forum member's choices to ignore the truth regarding the seriousness of that action) is the fact that his wife works SO CLOSELY with a "think tank" that is allied so closely to the "TEA Party". Talk about a bunch of KOOKS....sure, we are all rather disappointed that the cost of being an American has risen so sharply in the recent past, but the choice that seems to be preferred by the TEA party seems to be to reduce the cost, thereby reducing the attendant benefits enjoyed as Americans. It costs to play, so to speak.
IMHO, it's a case of "Pay up or get out". I'm not interested in seeing the standard of living diminished in my country by a bunch of selfish, money-grabbing individuals who want to have their cake (or in this case, their wealth) and eat it too.
...and now we have one of the nine individuals in this country who are the MOST insulated from having to answer for their actions lying about the manner and degree in which his spouse contributes to the family income....not to mention the influence that spouse may well have over the her husband's opinions--how many of us married individuals don't have discussions with our spouses in the privacy of our own homes and don't at times allow our beliefs to be "swayed" by the contents of those arguments. Sure, I know that ANY judge is suppose to render decisions based on the truth, but in all cases before any judge there is disagreement over what the truth is and that judge's opinions can and do contribute in large degree to his/her rulings. It's just human nature.
I agree with what was said regarding the rantings of the far left bloggers (which I refuse to read, just as I refuse to read the rantings of the far right bloggers)....I think we should insist that SCJ Thomas be immediately removed from office and that impeachment proceedings should be started immediately. This is way too serious a situation, our country cannot afford to allow this to continue.
Cheers from Doug!!
IMHO, it's a case of "Pay up or get out". I'm not interested in seeing the standard of living diminished in my country by a bunch of selfish, money-grabbing individuals who want to have their cake (or in this case, their wealth) and eat it too.
...and now we have one of the nine individuals in this country who are the MOST insulated from having to answer for their actions lying about the manner and degree in which his spouse contributes to the family income....not to mention the influence that spouse may well have over the her husband's opinions--how many of us married individuals don't have discussions with our spouses in the privacy of our own homes and don't at times allow our beliefs to be "swayed" by the contents of those arguments. Sure, I know that ANY judge is suppose to render decisions based on the truth, but in all cases before any judge there is disagreement over what the truth is and that judge's opinions can and do contribute in large degree to his/her rulings. It's just human nature.
I agree with what was said regarding the rantings of the far left bloggers (which I refuse to read, just as I refuse to read the rantings of the far right bloggers)....I think we should insist that SCJ Thomas be immediately removed from office and that impeachment proceedings should be started immediately. This is way too serious a situation, our country cannot afford to allow this to continue.
Cheers from Doug!!
Al, I don't recall you being so incensed when one of our esteemed members started a thread with this title (which turned out not to be accurate):
http://www.gt40s.com/forum/paddock/32433-b-o-supports-mosque-near-ground-zero.html
Where was your righteous indignation then, sir?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, so to speak. Jim is entitled to his opinion, just as is the author of that other thread I mentioned...they are both among my favorites here on the forum and also valued participants on the political discussions enjoyed here on "The Paddock". We are all entitled to our opinions, thank goodness for that! Imagine how boring our discourse here on these topics would be if we were prohibited from making statements that were true beyond question.
Support your position with proof based on information from unbiased sources and you will have a better chance of prevailing in our disagreements. Continue to ignore requests for proof and you will continue to appear to be part of the problem....Jim does appear to have the facts on his side in this case, IMHO.
Cheers from Doug!!
No place on google does it say "Supreme Court Justice Paid Off", you made this bullshit up.
Which one, Jim? Is it this one?:
Thanks back atcha, Jim.....I LOL, seriously!
Cheers from Doug!!
I don't recall where Jim said that Google said that....help me out, provide me with the post # on this thread where Jim attributes that statement to Google, please.
If you can't, then what you are attempting is a standard technique used by many a politician who knows they don't have a leg to stand on....try to confuse the oponent by introducing an extraneous issue into the debate, hoping the distraction will take the heat off the real issue and shield from discovery the possibility that you can't refute the opponent's assertion with facts.
As I understand it, it is JIM's assertion that a situation exists which can best be described as "Supreme Court Justice Paid Off". Many of the forum members have scoffed at that and made assertions to the contrary, or worse that Jim made it up. Jim simply asks that they offer some form of proof to prove him wrong (and, to his benefit, he hasn't even asked that the proof be from a non-biased source, as I would have insisted).
So, Al....I'm curious, what's the deal? Do you intend to offer any "true" proof, or do you believe that if you simply insult Jim it will serve to prove that he is wrong? That's scant proof to me, for sure!!!
Waiting.............waiting................wondering........ :idea:
Cheers from Doug!!
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Gee Al,
You know I Googled "Al is a moron"
I did not find anything, but that does not change the fact that you are a moron.
Moron: Definition: A mildy effected person, unable to understand fairly simple concepts.
Here I'll help you out.
A synonym for "paid off"..........BRIBE
Al if you Google Supreme Court Justice "Bribed" you will fine several posts.
You know I Googled "Al is a moron"
I did not find anything, but that does not change the fact that you are a moron.
Moron: Definition: A mildy effected person, unable to understand fairly simple concepts.
Here I'll help you out.
A synonym for "paid off"..........BRIBE
Al if you Google Supreme Court Justice "Bribed" you will fine several posts.
Well, since everyone seems to want to talk about financial malfeasance, lets hear from the Left (lifted from Wikipedia, without permission)
"Then-congressman Schumer in 1987, in opposition to the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, wrote in a New York Times op-ed: Don't Let Banks Become Casinos, wrote "Citing the pressures of rigorous worldwide competition in financial services, large American banks are pleading for the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, a law that keeps banks out of the more volatile and risky world of securities transactions. Their entreaties should be resisted..."[81]
Senator Schumer in 1999, in support of Congress’s repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, commented: "There are many reasons for this bill, but first and foremost is to ensure that U.S. financial firms remain competitive."[82]
The Securities and Investment industry is the largest donor to Schumer’s senatorial campaigns.[83]
On December 14, 2008 the New York Times published an article on Schumer's role in the Wall Street meltdown. The article stated that Schumer:[84]
<DL><DD>embraced the industry’s free-market, deregulatory agenda more than any other Democrat in Congress, even backing measures now blamed for contributing to the financial crisis... Schumer took steps to protect industry players from government oversight and tougher rules, a review of his record shows. Over the years, he has also helped save financial institutions billions of dollars in higher taxes or fees. He succeeded in limiting efforts to regulate credit-rating agencies.</DD></DL>This article also charged that Schumer blocked ratings agencies reforms proposed by the Bush Administration and the Cox SEC.[84]
Following the meltdown of the subprime mortgage industry in March 2007, Schumer proposed a federal government bailout of subprime borrowers in order to save homeowners from losing their residences and to shore up communities that were seeing neighborhoods destabilized due to foreclosures and the resultant decreases in neighboring home values.[66] As part of a package of regulatory reforms Schumer has pushed in response to the subprime foreclosure crisis he called for the creation of mortgage industry regulator to protect borrowers from deceptive lending practices and called for the Securities and Exchange Commission to relocate from Washington to New York so that it was in closer proximity to the industry it was charged with overseeing.[67]
Schumer's top nine campaign contributors are all financial institutions who have contributed over $2.5 million to the senator.[68]"
And if you are really interested, there’s lots more where that came from. Then, if you still have the stomach for it, look up Barney Frank’s record. Lets not quibble about a few hundred thousand dollars to a Supreme Court Justice and his wife…lets talk about millions of out of work Americans, and the politicians who made it so.
Sorry Jim, I know you don’t want to hear about this, but I’m just pouring fuel on the fire.
Now I’m going to sit back, get all warm and toasty, and maybe roast a marshmallow over the flames.
"Then-congressman Schumer in 1987, in opposition to the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, wrote in a New York Times op-ed: Don't Let Banks Become Casinos, wrote "Citing the pressures of rigorous worldwide competition in financial services, large American banks are pleading for the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, a law that keeps banks out of the more volatile and risky world of securities transactions. Their entreaties should be resisted..."[81]
Senator Schumer in 1999, in support of Congress’s repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, commented: "There are many reasons for this bill, but first and foremost is to ensure that U.S. financial firms remain competitive."[82]
The Securities and Investment industry is the largest donor to Schumer’s senatorial campaigns.[83]
On December 14, 2008 the New York Times published an article on Schumer's role in the Wall Street meltdown. The article stated that Schumer:[84]
<DL><DD>embraced the industry’s free-market, deregulatory agenda more than any other Democrat in Congress, even backing measures now blamed for contributing to the financial crisis... Schumer took steps to protect industry players from government oversight and tougher rules, a review of his record shows. Over the years, he has also helped save financial institutions billions of dollars in higher taxes or fees. He succeeded in limiting efforts to regulate credit-rating agencies.</DD></DL>This article also charged that Schumer blocked ratings agencies reforms proposed by the Bush Administration and the Cox SEC.[84]
Following the meltdown of the subprime mortgage industry in March 2007, Schumer proposed a federal government bailout of subprime borrowers in order to save homeowners from losing their residences and to shore up communities that were seeing neighborhoods destabilized due to foreclosures and the resultant decreases in neighboring home values.[66] As part of a package of regulatory reforms Schumer has pushed in response to the subprime foreclosure crisis he called for the creation of mortgage industry regulator to protect borrowers from deceptive lending practices and called for the Securities and Exchange Commission to relocate from Washington to New York so that it was in closer proximity to the industry it was charged with overseeing.[67]
Schumer's top nine campaign contributors are all financial institutions who have contributed over $2.5 million to the senator.[68]"
And if you are really interested, there’s lots more where that came from. Then, if you still have the stomach for it, look up Barney Frank’s record. Lets not quibble about a few hundred thousand dollars to a Supreme Court Justice and his wife…lets talk about millions of out of work Americans, and the politicians who made it so.
Sorry Jim, I know you don’t want to hear about this, but I’m just pouring fuel on the fire.
Now I’m going to sit back, get all warm and toasty, and maybe roast a marshmallow over the flames.
Last edited:
Pat
Supporter
Let me try this again. Here is the statute. You read it. It specifically says there is no requirement to list spouse income, only the sources. It would appear that the liberal passions on the forum are obscuring the facts and vacuous allegations of bribery and malfeasance are conjured up.
ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT OF 1978
“The source of items of earned income earned by a spouse from any person which exceed $1,000 and the source and amount of any honoraria received by a spouse, except that, with respect to earned income (other than honoraria), if the spouse is self-employed in business or a profession, only the nature of such business or profession need be reported.”
As far as interest income, the statute says:
..."For purposes of this section, categories with amounts or values greater than $1,000,000 set forth in sections 102 (a)(1)(B) and 102 (d)(1) shall apply to the income, assets, or liabilities of spouses and dependent children only if the income, assets, or liabilities are held jointly with the reporting individual. All other income, assets, or liabilities of the spouse or dependent children required to be reported under this section in an amount or value greater than $1,000,000 shall be categorized only as an amount or value greater than $1,000,000."
So unless she made a $million dollars, held jointly, that isn't reported either...
Get a grip...
Now if you want to discuss a quid pro quo, try this:
The University of Chicago Medical center hired Michelle Obama in 2002 to run
“programs for community relations, neighborhood outreach,
Volunteer recruitment, staff diversity and minority contracting”
In 2005, the hospital raised her salary from $120,000 to $317,000.
Nearly twice what her husband, Barack Obama, made as a Senator. Ironically, he was elected to the US Senate in 2004, shortly before Ms. Obama's substantial pay increase. Also ironically, newly elected Senator Obama, requested a $1 million earmark for
The UC Medical Center. (In fairness, I have to tell you he did not get it.)
In addition, The Chicago Tribune reported (May, 2007) state Sen. Emil Jones (D-Chicago), sponsored a federal grant request for the Chicago-based Muntu Dance Theatre which they received a $4.5 million to help pay for a $10 million cultural center. Mr. Obama is listed on the HUD report as a sponsor.
Look for yourself, http://www.hud.gov/offices/cfo/earmarks.pdf
And at the time $2.25 million of the grant was disbursed, Mr. Obama's wife, Michelle, sat on the non-profit dance group's board. If you go to the Muntu Dance Theater website, MUNTU DANCE THEATRE OF CHICAGO you will see that Ms Obama is currently listed as a Campaign Committee Member.
(As an update, The Chicago Tribune reports "The original plans for the $15 million performing arts center, built across the street from the popular Little Black Pearl arts and learning center, were to create a hub for African-American arts and culture in a historic neighborhood of Bronzeville. Seven years later, two circular concrete blocks intended to be part of the center's foundation are all that sits on the property, which has become overgrown with weeds and debris.") There is an inquiry underway.
Yet even more ironic, Mr. Obama said in the interview that at the time of the award in 2003 his wife wasn't a board member, though tax returns of the charity indicate she sat on the board in 2002 and 2003. State Senator Jones' spokeswoman said Michelle Obama did not lobby him for the funds. (I assume she had privy to all of their conversations).
So according to the Chicago Tribune, Mr. Obama made a similar error to which you are accusing Judge Thomas with one big distinction, a lot of federal money changed hands in one but not the other.
Perhaps they both should be impeached and prosecuted.
Or... you can come to the conclusion that all this hate mongering is nonsense and it is pretty easy to construct a fact pattern to suit any witch hunt your heart desires.
I don't think President or Ms Obama did anything materially wrong in the items above. Nor do I think Justice Thomas or Ms Thomas did either. But it doesn't take much to generate hysterics around here.
BTW,
You guys keep referencing the "Tea Party" I assume you mean the grassroots movement for government fiscal responsibility, a rational immigration agenda etc. But there is no TEA PARTY as such. Not nationally, like say, the American Socialist Workers Party, or the American Communist party.
I'm sure it's just easier for you to pick out some random wacko, label him a "tea party" member, and try to slander everyone who doesn't claim membership in one of the big two, but I find this whole approach simplistic and probably disingenuous.
From what I’ve seen., there seems to be a fairly mixed demographic attending such events (at least when I don’t watch coverage by CNBC). Focusing on the wacko component makes about as much sense as pretending that the democrat party is only composed of crack mothers and environmental terrorists. Not accurate, and not fair.
And no, I haven't been to any rallies, sent any money etc. I'm registered as "declined to state", essentially, not a member of any party. Been so for years.
You guys keep referencing the "Tea Party" I assume you mean the grassroots movement for government fiscal responsibility, a rational immigration agenda etc. But there is no TEA PARTY as such. Not nationally, like say, the American Socialist Workers Party, or the American Communist party.
I'm sure it's just easier for you to pick out some random wacko, label him a "tea party" member, and try to slander everyone who doesn't claim membership in one of the big two, but I find this whole approach simplistic and probably disingenuous.
From what I’ve seen., there seems to be a fairly mixed demographic attending such events (at least when I don’t watch coverage by CNBC). Focusing on the wacko component makes about as much sense as pretending that the democrat party is only composed of crack mothers and environmental terrorists. Not accurate, and not fair.
And no, I haven't been to any rallies, sent any money etc. I'm registered as "declined to state", essentially, not a member of any party. Been so for years.
Jim and Doug (AKA the "Coalition for 'Onest Open Liberty" ("COOL")
Dont you guys get it yet... Al has been called on sooooo many times to say that something is wrong and yet he refuses to do so.
I have asked him (like you guys) to address an issue many times, but it ain't gonna happen.
A simple denouncement of an action that is wrong goes a long way to mediation, even on a forum such as this, where we are weak minded petrolheads with an inkling for political debate.
Come on Al and the other guys on here that won't fess up, make a stand for impartiality!
Whichever way you bake the Justice's cake - he was wrong, in a big way. Probably criminally wrong. Your wife can't take hundreds of thousands of $$$ and then not disclose the fact when the law says that you should.
Simples!
Dont you guys get it yet... Al has been called on sooooo many times to say that something is wrong and yet he refuses to do so.
I have asked him (like you guys) to address an issue many times, but it ain't gonna happen.
A simple denouncement of an action that is wrong goes a long way to mediation, even on a forum such as this, where we are weak minded petrolheads with an inkling for political debate.
Come on Al and the other guys on here that won't fess up, make a stand for impartiality!
Whichever way you bake the Justice's cake - he was wrong, in a big way. Probably criminally wrong. Your wife can't take hundreds of thousands of $$$ and then not disclose the fact when the law says that you should.
Simples!