PDA

View Full Version : Just When



Marvin S
10-28-2010, 11:39 PM
A person thinks that the creativity of campaigns is gone a new twist surfaces. Now I've heard of a liberal R bringing a stalking horse Pseudo Conservative R (with a future job offer) into a race to siphon off enough votes from a more conservative D but this most recent one is a step up.

In our state the 2 parties wanted to restrict our ability to crossover so we were faced with a party line primary :(. So an initiative was cobbled together that passed & now allows the top two regardless of party to advance to the general election. It actually works well to keep politico's more centrist. Two groups of people are strong primary voters, the God Squad R's & the Lib D's of which our state has an abundance.

Everett WA is a somewhat conservative to moderate D stronghold. This is how the incumbent State Senator was perceived & she was being challenged from the left. The powers of the D party did not want their chosen candidate to have to face the incumbent in the general election. So they created a phony campaign committee & funneled some money through that phony committee with a mailing that appeared to support the R candidate. This was all done so disclosure would not happen until after the primary. The incumbent ended in third place by 69 votes.

What passes for the MSM in our area pickedup up on this & with a little sleuthing it was found that the backers of this tactic were the WA State Labor Council, the WA Federation of State Employees & the WA State Association for Justice (the Trial Lawyers). The owner of the media company faces several charges & will probably pay a hefty fine but has been rewarded by these same consitituencies with another $500,000 buy for the general election.

So, with all the teeth gnashing about the SCOTUS decison to allow free speech, what's you lefty's think on this?

Buzz
10-29-2010, 10:01 AM
I think the whole frigg'in process is a mess and I'm getting really sick of it.

BonMallari
10-29-2010, 10:12 AM
Here is hoping that the state of Washington sends Senator Murray into early retirement

WRL
10-29-2010, 10:53 AM
[QUOTE=BonMallari;697294]Here is hoping that the state of Washington sends Senator Murray into early retirement[/QUOTE

Unfortunately, WA politics is pretty much dictated by the Seattle and Vancouver (Portland suburb) areas. Both of which are fairly liberal.

It would be HUGE if she does not end up being relected.

I believe that Marvin is talking about a local rep to the State Senate not the Murray/Rossi Senate campaign.

WRL

sometimes a great notion
10-29-2010, 11:10 AM
Both are not worth a pot to piss in, but I will take Murray before Rossi. At least Murray tries to keep our jobs in state and in house where as Dino would love to see our jobs go over seas and he would help the companies pack.

Cody Covey
10-29-2010, 11:27 AM
Both are not worth a pot to piss in, but I will take Murray before Rossi. At least Murray tries to keep our jobs in state and in house where as Dino would love to see our jobs go over seas and he would help the companies pack.

ignorance is bliss i suppose...

sometimes a great notion
10-29-2010, 01:00 PM
Dino would love to send my aerospace job overseas. Acutally, Boeing is now bringing home lots of jobs back to us as our contractors are doing a crappy ass job of doing it themselves.

sometimes a great notion
10-29-2010, 01:23 PM
never once has Dino ever stepped on Boeing property to talk about how he would help us keep our jobs. Murray and Cantwell have always been there for us, lobbying to keep our jobs in state and in house. They have been here for us to go through the Tanker Deal, Rossi? where is he? where was he? He supports tax breaks for big companies to send our jobs over seas. If Boeing leaves town, Seattle will be off the map. We support 4 other people with our wages. I did not say they were great as senators, but I would vote for her over Rossi. you dont have to be a senator to come in and talk to the workers here. Just show up and start talking to us, he will prolly get booed out, but he has not shown support for us at all.

Marvin S
10-29-2010, 01:38 PM
Here is hoping that the state of Washington sends Senator Murray into early retirement

Unfortunately, WA politics is pretty much dictated by the Seattle and Vancouver (Portland suburb) areas. Both of which are fairly liberal.

It would be HUGE if she does not end up being relected.

I believe that Marvin is talking about a local rep to the State Senate not the Murray/Rossi Senate campaign.

WRL

Now - back on subject - Today's Tacoma News Tribune has a front page article on this subject. Seems that though the media organization agreed to pay a $30K fine the PDC has asked the State Attorney General to seriously explore other civil alternatives up to & including holding a new election. While an election is an expensive process allowing unbridled spending is a lot more expensive. If you go to the News Tribune's site the only reference is the Calleghen columns which do discuss the actions of the media company but don't have the latest development.

But I still wonder about the so called "progressives" position on this type of election philandering. Speaking only for myself I don't accept this type of crap from any party as It circumvents the process for personal gain.

WRL
10-29-2010, 02:00 PM
Here's a link to the article that I believe Marvin is referring to.

http://blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/2010/10/28/moxie-medias-lisa-maclean-accepts-deal-with-pdc-staff-will-pay-30000-fine-if-commission-agrees/

WRL

Marvin S
10-29-2010, 03:02 PM
Here's a link to the article that I believe Marvin is referring to.

http://blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/2010/10/28/moxie-medias-lisa-maclean-accepts-deal-with-pdc-staff-will-pay-30000-fine-if-commission-agrees/

WRL

Thanks - I like the comments part. Kind of a LTTE quickly.

WRL
10-29-2010, 04:17 PM
[quote=WRL;697390]Here's a link to the article that I believe Marvin is referring to.

http://blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/2010/10/28/moxie-medias-lisa-maclean-accepts-deal-with-pdc-staff-will-pay-30000-fine-if-commission-agrees/

WRL[/quote

Thanks - I like the comments part. Kind of a LTTE quickly.

Marvin you pm'd me. Was that a mistake?

I responded but have not gotten a response to that.

WRL

Marvin S
10-29-2010, 04:27 PM
[quote=Marvin S;697416]

Marvin you pm'd me. Was that a mistake?

I responded but have not gotten a response to that.

WRL

No, Info only PM :).

WRL
10-29-2010, 04:28 PM
Oh. Well its not my business. I'm not the watch dog.

Don't work for Boeing, don't care if they legalize pot and anyone who has been in office 18 years is PART of the problem I don't care what party they are with.

WRL

YardleyLabs
10-29-2010, 04:39 PM
Now - back on subject - Today's Tacoma News Tribune has a front page article on this subject. Seems that though the media organization agreed to pay a $30K fine the PDC has asked the State Attorney General to seriously explore other civil alternatives up to & including holding a new election. While an election is an expensive process allowing unbridled spending is a lot more expensive. If you go to the News Tribune's site the only reference is the Calleghen columns which do discuss the actions of the media company but don't have the latest development.

But I still wonder about the so called "progressives" position on this type of election philandering. Speaking only for myself I don't accept this type of crap from any party as It circumvents the process for personal gain.
From the article, I wasn't clear on what, specifically, upset you or even what part would warrant a new election. Funding third candidates for the sole purpose of drawing support away from a stronger candidate is a time-honored, albeit sleazy, tactic. Major donors to the Bush-Cheney campaign, for example, represented about 10% of all donations to Nader's 2004 Presidential campaign. Creating fictitious organizations to funnel money to candidates is enjoying a major resurgence this year. For example, Crossroads GPS was founded an a 501(c)(3) organization, classifying itself as a social welfare organization. It has no identifiable purpose other than to funnel money for attack ads. These ads are not disclosed at the time they are placed, as is required for political ads, because Crossroads says it is not political. There are no required financial reports other than the annual report required by the IRS in January 2012. No disclosures of spending are required, because Crossroads says it is not political. Similarly, no reporting is required to state or Federal election organizations. Crossroads is funneling tens of millions of dollars. You can see an example of one of its educational ads at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfCqNHQ_6kc&feature=player_embedded.

Maybe we should be planning on re-running mid-term elections nationwide now. Or maybe we are simply seeing the fall out of the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United. Personally, I think that voters have a right to know whose money is buying an election.

BTW: The icing on the cake is that donations to Crossroads GPS are fully tax deductible....

Buzz
10-29-2010, 05:01 PM
From the article, I wasn't clear on what, specifically, upset you or even what part would warrant a new election. Funding third candidates for the sole purpose of drawing support away from a stronger candidate is a time-honored, albeit sleazy, tactic. Major donors to the Bush-Cheney campaign, for example, represented about 10% of all donations to Nader's 2004 Presidential campaign. Creating fictitious organizations to funnel money to candidates is enjoying a major resurgence this year. For example, Crossroads GPS was founded an a 501(c)(3) organization, classifying itself as a social welfare organization. It has no identifiable purpose other than to funnel money for attack ads. These ads are not disclosed at the time they are placed, as is required for political ads, because Crossroads says it is not political. There are no required financial reports other than the annual report required by the IRS in January 2012. No disclosures of spending are required, because Crossroads says it is not political. Similarly, no reporting is required to state or Federal election organizations. Crossroads is funneling tens of millions of dollars. You can see an example of one of its educational ads at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfCqNHQ_6kc&feature=player_embedded.

Maybe we should be planning on re-running mid-term elections nationwide now. Or maybe we are simply seeing the fall out of the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United. Personally, I think that voters have a right to know whose money is buying an election.

BTW: The icing on the cake is that donations to Crossroads GPS are fully tax deductible....


I had no idea that Crossroads GPS was a c3. How on earth can they get away with that? Seems like fraud to me.

Marvin S
10-29-2010, 05:08 PM
From the article, I wasn't clear on what, specifically, upset you or even what part would warrant a new election.

What turned me on was the fact that there was so many gyrations to hide the funding parties. Those parties will bankrupt this country if given a chance :confused:.


Personally, I think that voters have a right to know whose money is buying an election.

BTW: The icing on the cake is that donations to Crossroads GPS are fully tax deductible....

I believe that the donor should be disclosed before the ad is run or committed to. But I don't have an issue with someone publicizing the record of out of touch politico's, even as a tax exempt - someone had to earn those funds & there are wealthy people who actually care about where this country goes :o.

dnf777
10-29-2010, 05:16 PM
& there are wealthy people who actually care about where this country goes :o.[/QUOTE]

yes, but there are also many wealthy people who don't give a rats a$$ about this country, and who influence elections to benefit themselves.

I'm glad to see some republicans are beginning to see the disaster in the Citizens United ruling. This wasn't a political thing....everyone got screwed.

On a related note, if Obama only does one thing in the next two years, I'd like to see a "citizen" defined...possibly at a Constitutional level....as a human being...not domestic or even foreign corporations!

Cody Covey
10-29-2010, 05:31 PM
& there are wealthy people who actually care about where this country goes :o.

yes, but there are also many wealthy people who don't give a rats a$$ about this country, and who influence elections to benefit themselves.

I'm glad to see some republicans are beginning to see the disaster in the Citizens United ruling. This wasn't a political thing....everyone got screwed.

On a related note, if Obama only does one thing in the next two years, I'd like to see a "citizen" defined...possibly at a Constitutional level....as a human being...not domestic or even foreign corporations![/QUOTE]
And there goes 70 years of supreme court rulings :)

YardleyLabs
10-29-2010, 06:17 PM
What turned me on was the fact that there was so many gyrations to hide the funding parties. Those parties will bankrupt this country if given a chance :confused:.



I believe that the donor should be disclosed before the ad is run or committed to. But I don't have an issue with someone publicizing the record of out of touch politico's, even as a tax exempt - someone had to earn those funds & there are wealthy people who actually care about where this country goes :o.
If you are concerned about the gyrations used to conceal identities of donors -- especially those whose donations directly support their commercial interests -- then you must love the activities of Karl Rove, the Koch brothers, and your own favorite Club for Growth (which just began accepting anonymous, tax deductible contributions to support its political agenda under the umbrella of a 501(c)(4) and the Citizens United ruling). The Koch brothers have been reported to be spending as much as $100 million during the current election cycle to support causes that, coincidentally enough, align perfectly with their personal business interests. I think that almost everyone running an attack ad during a campaign would argue that they are doing nothing but disclosing the other candidate's record to "educate" the public.

dnf777
10-29-2010, 07:40 PM
yes, but there are also many wealthy people who don't give a rats a$$ about this country, and who influence elections to benefit themselves.

I'm glad to see some republicans are beginning to see the disaster in the Citizens United ruling. This wasn't a political thing....everyone got screwed.

On a related note, if Obama only does one thing in the next two years, I'd like to see a "citizen" defined...possibly at a Constitutional level....as a human being...not domestic or even foreign corporations!
And there goes 70 years of supreme court rulings :)[/QUOTE]

Better than "there goes 230 years of democracy and the United States of America".

YardleyLabs
10-29-2010, 08:01 PM
I had no idea that Crossroads GPS was a c3. How on earth can they get away with that? Seems like fraud to me.
I mis-typed. They are a c4, which means they may make political expenditures but it cannot be a primary purpose. Of course, that is the only thing they do or pretend to do. However, they call it education.

Marvin S
10-29-2010, 10:07 PM
Actually I expected a little more sanity from both of you so on that count I am disappointed :).


I'm glad to see some republicans are beginning to see the disaster in the Citizens United ruling. This wasn't a political thing....everyone got screwed.

If you are talking about me, I see no disaster - I see a more level playing field :o.


If you are concerned about the gyrations used to conceal identities of donors -- especially those whose donations directly support their commercial interests -- then you must love the activities of Karl Rove, the Koch brothers, and your own favorite Club for Growth (which just began accepting anonymous, tax deductible contributions to support its political agenda under the umbrella of a 501(c)(4) and the Citizens United ruling). The Koch brothers have been reported to be spending as much as $100 million during the current election cycle to support causes that, coincidentally enough, align perfectly with their personal business interests. I think that almost everyone running an attack ad during a campaign would argue that they are doing nothing but disclosing the other candidate's record to "educate" the public.

As for the Koch Bros supporting their business interests, that's what I would expect them to do. It's their money & if I don't like what they do I don't have to patronize them :confused:. Karl Rove has never asked me for a nickel & if he did I wouldn't donate to him as I disagree with his formula for making this a better country, but I probably would not disagree with him too much on what the end result should be. I believe he has been too marginalized to be an effective negotiator, just like a lot of politico's.

But both of you miss a point, which surprises me but then again maybe not, what the Koch's & Karl Rove (from willing donors) are using is their money - in the case of the participants named in the original post they are indirectly using taxpayer money because they are not taxpayers, they are tax takers. & taxpayer money is indirectly being used to extort more money from the taxpayer. We, as taxpayers, are asked to accept more taxation to cover a standard of living including their political choices. In one case the taxpayer gets a choice about participating, in the other there is no choice.

It's like the Gates Foundation - they get to choose where that money is spent whereas Joe Taxpayer does not - someone else makes the choice. I would note I believe their choices to be worthy, it's just that they get to make the choice with the corresponding writeoff, the little guy does not. I wouldn't expect this to make sense to you two as you need some before there is understanding :), but there are certain freedoms I really value & the right to choose is one.

dnf777
10-29-2010, 10:15 PM
Marvin,
So you have no problem with a corporation anonymously trumping grass roots movements by your fellow Americans? Those proud candidates who talk about receiving donations in the form of 5 and 10 dollar bills from thousands of supporters....

One company can outspend and entire constituency and sway an election, quite possibly not in the favor of the very employees who helped create that very wealth. Are you saying that you're ok with that kind of democracy?

david gibson
10-29-2010, 10:42 PM
If you are concerned about the gyrations used to conceal identities of donors -- especially those whose donations directly support their commercial interests -- then you must love the activities of Karl Rove, the Koch brothers, and your own favorite Club for Growth (which just began accepting anonymous, tax deductible contributions to support its political agenda under the umbrella of a 501(c)(4) and the Citizens United ruling). The Koch brothers have been reported to be spending as much as $100 million during the current election cycle to support causes that, coincidentally enough, align perfectly with their personal business interests. I think that almost everyone running an attack ad during a campaign would argue that they are doing nothing but disclosing the other candidate's record to "educate" the public.

please analyze george soros in the same light. he has no special interest either? please dont forget deep water drilling in Brazil.

depittydawg
10-29-2010, 10:58 PM
Both are not worth a pot to piss in, but I will take Murray before Rossi. At least Murray tries to keep our jobs in state and in house where as Dino would love to see our jobs go over seas and he would help the companies pack.

I don't live in Wa but from what I've heard, Rossi is a crook. How many times has this guy lost a major election in Wa? Seems like this is at least his third.

Marvin S
10-29-2010, 11:12 PM
Marvin,
So you have no problem with a corporation anonymously trumping grass roots movements by your fellow Americans? Those proud candidates who talk about receiving donations in the form of 5 and 10 dollar bills from thousands of supporters.... you're kidding I hope :) :)

One company can outspend and entire constituency and sway an election, quite possibly not in the favor of the very employees who helped create that very wealth. Are you saying that you're ok with that kind of democracy?

The effectiveness of these organizations will be determined by their ability to get their message across - people quit listening somewhere along any line :o. I just don't have any problem with money in campaigns that is earned, they can spend it as they see fit. The unions have enjoyed free rein for much too long, I believe the SCOTUS decision leveled the playing field.

I have no envy toward those who are wealthy, & I beleive they make a democracy what it is, there is always something to strive for. What I do have some issue with is those who claim to be for the "little guy" but line their pockets along the way. Not to get off subject "but do you think Ralph Nader is poor" though he claims to champion for the "little guy". :)

dnf777
10-30-2010, 08:20 AM
I have no envy toward those who are wealthy, & I beleive they make a democracy what it is, there is always something to strive for. What I do have some issue with is those who claim to be for the "little guy" but line their pockets along the way. Not to get off subject "but do you think Ralph Nader is poor" though he claims to champion for the "little guy". :)

I agree to a certain extent. But capitalism and greed (its limiting factor) should be with some constraint, otherwise the natural evolution is into an oligarchy, and somewhere you cross the line.

No, I do not think Nader is poor. I think he has done some good things for consumers along his ascent, but do not support him politically at all. Let me ask you in a similar vein....what do you think of George Soros and his money and influence in the political system. I think he's sleaze, but he did rise through the capitalist elite, playing by their rules, and now he's despised by many who helped him along the way.

YardleyLabs
10-30-2010, 08:38 AM
please analyze george soros in the same light. he has no special interest either? please dont forget deep water drilling in Brazil.
George Soros is an interesting case and stands in sharp contrast to the Koch brothers. Soros is very open about his political beliefs and his use of money to support the charitable and political groups in which he believes. His political interests seldom support his obvious short term interests. He believes that people like him should pay more taxes and have a great responsibility to give back to the societies that made their success possible. He is highly competitive in the business world, but has committed almost all of his money for charitable use. Reporters are given virtually unlimited access to the foundation he uses to direct the use of his wealth and to its records. By contrast, the Koch brothers only support causes that line their own pockets. They are highly secretive in all they do and use many tactics to avoid any scrutiny.

YardleyLabs
10-30-2010, 09:08 AM
...

As for the Koch Bros supporting their business interests, that's what I would expect them to do. It's their money & if I don't like what they do I don't have to patronize them :confused:. Karl Rove has never asked me for a nickel & if he did I wouldn't donate to him as I disagree with his formula for making this a better country, but I probably would not disagree with him too much on what the end result should be. I believe he has been too marginalized to be an effective negotiator, just like a lot of politico's.

But both of you miss a point, which surprises me but then again maybe not, what the Koch's & Karl Rove (from willing donors) are using is their money - in the case of the participants named in the original post they are indirectly using taxpayer money because they are not taxpayers, they are tax takers. & taxpayer money is indirectly being used to extort more money from the taxpayer. We, as taxpayers, are asked to accept more taxation to cover a standard of living including their political choices. In one case the taxpayer gets a choice about participating, in the other there is no choice.

It's like the Gates Foundation - they get to choose where that money is spent whereas Joe Taxpayer does not - someone else makes the choice. I would note I believe their choices to be worthy, it's just that they get to make the choice with the corresponding writeoff, the little guy does not. I wouldn't expect this to make sense to you two as you need some before there is understanding :), but there are certain freedoms I really value & the right to choose is one.
I'm not sure how you are classifying one group as tax payers and the other as tax takers. None of the organizations you have mentioned -- Karl Rove's Crossroads groups or the Washington federations -- are tax payers. They are all tax exempt non-profits. Those contributing to those organization, however, are tax payers. Of course, one of the distinctions in our tax code is that money contributed for political purposes is not eligible for tax deduction. However, Rove and the Club for Growth have structured their organizations to circumvent this restriction so that taxpayer money can be used to support their causes.

All in all, your argument simply seems confused. You seem to assume that anyone employed by government or receiving government assistance is somehow using taxpayer money tp lobby for more. How does rthat appy to the Koch brothers who have received over $100 million in Federal funds? What about Halliburton which receives almost all of it revenues and profits from tax payers? Microsoft, of course, would virtually cease to exist without the full power of the US government protecting its intellectual property rights (despite having allowed Microsoft to steal much of its core intellectual property -- including DOS and Windows -- before laws were changed in its favor). And the Koch brothers would not be relevant if it were not for oil leases on Federal and Indian land where they were convicted of under reporting the oil taken to avoid paying royalties (that case came to light only when one of the brothers had a falling out and filed whistle blowing charges of over 24,000 false statements concerning oil removed).

I actually have mixed feelings about the disclosure of political contributions because of the potential chilling effect that it can have. However, that needs to be balanced against the rights of a democracy to prevent the freedom of voters to be stolen by those with deep pockets.

Marvin S
10-30-2010, 08:18 PM
I agree to a certain extent. But capitalism and greed (its limiting factor) should be with some constraint, otherwise the natural evolution is into an oligarchy, and somewhere you cross the line.

The best constraint is public opinion, the problem today is very few are perceptive enough to have an opinion worthy of public acknowledgement (example - the number of outside sourced very shallow minded quotes on this forum). The good deeds done by the previously wealthy i.e. the Carnegie library's at a time when reading a good book was not easily done as few books were available.

The goal today is to get their's, one only need look at Mr Micrsosoftie to see the robber baron mentality. & that is prevalent throughout the tech sector & much of our society, Franklin Raines comes to mind.


No, I do not think Nader is poor. I think he has done some good things for consumers along his ascent, but do not support him politically at all. Let me ask you in a similar vein....what do you think of George Soros and his money and influence in the political system. I think he's sleaze, but he did rise through the capitalist elite, playing by their rules, and now he's despised by many who helped him along the way.

George Soros made a calculated LUCKY call on the pound. The reason I say that is not always do the stars align in the investing world, & I know a little about that. He's a Hungarian, not an American. His MoveOn operation is about the same level as ACORN, IMM. I resent his intrusion into our political climate.

I was a teenager when our SD GI's came home from WWII. They had liberated A''holes like him for $21 a month & GI rations, they had not been coddled with R & R breaks to combat battle fatigue. When they got back they found their place in civilian life & assimilated, few talked about it as it was just something that had to be done. I served in the Korean conflict, not as a ground pounder like my relatives but I was still subject to the draft. There is nothing like being in full dress uniform to march for the then POTUS at HDQTR's SAC, the music alone will make you get that tingle that only pride in your country would create.

Ours is an exceptional country, it offers great opportunity for those capable of grabbing the bull by whatever & doing something. Sometimes those accomplishments do not come easily & those who do get there honestly should be congratulated for their achievement.

George Soros's business thrives on chaos in government, which is best created by having people interested in distributing someone else's hard earned wealth to someone who's along for the ride. One only need to look at the Congresscritters made wealthy by their roles in screwing things up.

& I'll just fall off my soapbox now :).

YardleyLabs
10-30-2010, 08:56 PM
For all of his reputation as the master of liberal evil, Soros has still spent less on political causes in the US than the Koch brothers, and his spending has been done in the open.

As far as citizenship goes, I don't know how one can complain about Soros' status as a Jewish refugee from Nazism, who arrived in the US in 1956 from England, educated himself out of poverty, became a citizen, and emerged as one of the most successful financial speculators and investors in history. Compare that with Rupert Murdoch, who became a US citizen solely to circumvent rules limiting ownership of television stations by non-citizens so he could extend the political reach of his media empire and his influence over American politics.

Denigrating Soros' gains on the pound ignores the fact that he and his partners risked $10 billion on the bet that made them $1 billion, and the fact that if that were his only success, he would have run out of money long ago.

It seems to me that Soros embodies the American dream. We are, after all, a nation of refugees from religious intolerance seeking the opportuntities that can be pursued in an open economy. He brought no inherited wealth and no special connections. Instead, he succeeded based on his own intellect and drive. Isn't that what we have have been telling people to do for years? Having been a citizen and tax payer for more than 50 years certainly seem to give him equal rights to articulate and fight for his positions.

Buzz
10-30-2010, 09:19 PM
George Soros made a calculated LUCKY call on the pound. The reason I say that is not always do the stars align in the investing world, & I know a little about that. He's a Hungarian, not an American. His MoveOn operation is about the same level as ACORN, IMM. I resent his intrusion into our political climate.




Is this how you feel about everyone who has immigrated here and become a citizen? What is the criteria for being an American, do they have to agree with your politics? Do you feel the same disdain toward Rupert Murdoch, or is his intrusion into US politics OK because he is of the same political stripe as you?

Marvin S
10-30-2010, 10:33 PM
Is this how you feel about everyone who has immigrated here and become a citizen? What is the criteria for being an American, do they have to agree with your politics? Do you feel the same disdain toward Rupert Murdoch, or is his intrusion into US politics OK because he is of the same political stripe as you?

No one has to agree with me - you lefty's need to realize that a lot of people do :cool:. As for Murdoch, he saw a need & filled it. There is somewhat more balance in MSM because of his business decision.

The difference b/t Murdoch & Soros is Murdoch saw a need & filled it at just a little bit of profit to himself, whereas Soros only carried a niche already filled to extremes. I watch our local FOX station for morning & evening local news. What I like about their station is they are the WalMart of broadcasting, there are NONE of the beautiful people types pimpin the news on these broadcasts. Buzz, you probably watch more of the rest of FOX in a week than I do in a year ;-).

YardleyLabs
10-31-2010, 07:30 AM
No one has to agree with me - you lefty's need to realize that a lot of people do :cool:. As for Murdoch, he saw a need & filled it. There is somewhat more balance in MSM because of his business decision.

The difference b/t Murdoch & Soros is Murdoch saw a need & filled it at just a little bit of profit to himself, whereas Soros only carried a niche already filled to extremes. I watch our local FOX station for morning & evening local news. What I like about their station is they are the WalMart of broadcasting, there are NONE of the beautiful people types pimpin the news on these broadcasts. Buzz, you probably watch more of the rest of FOX in a week than I do in a year ;-).
You have got to be joking. Poor Rupert with his paltry profits having to make do with only about $6-9 billion. I guess that is why he ranks last among the wealthy in charitable donations according to Condé Nast, making him as generous in his private life as he is in his public. Compare that with George Soros, worth about $9 billion, who has given over $3 billion to charity and has committed to distributing billions more.

Rupert Murdoch, however, found a need and filled it at small profit -- newspaper owner (actually heir) known for producing bold headlines of sex and scandal. He inherited his first two newspapers at the age of 22, when his father died, and returned to Australia to assume control the next year after finishing his degree at Oxford. He converted The News into a sex and scandal rag, creating soaring circulation and profit, which he used to purchase numerous additional newspapers which he then took through a similar conversion. This set the pattern for his subsequent acquisitions -- buy something someone else had built up, cut costs on actual reporting by converting to a focus on sex, scandals and sports combined with conservative editorials, and move on to the next conquest.

Contrast that to George Soros. He too attended school in London at about the same time as Murdoch, going to the London School of Economics rather than Oxford. He studied philosophy while there and graduated penniless. He began working as a financial analyst to make enough money to write and study, but proved to be very successful. He emigrated to the US where he subsequently formed the Quantum Fund after first working 14 years in firms owned by others. This fund produced a 4000% profit over the next decade, leaving Soros with a fortune estimated at $11 billion by around 1980, or more than 10 years before what Marvin calls his "lucky guess" on the devaluation of the British pound. During that first decade on his own, Soros began a pattern of charitable giving that has continued and accelerated over time. He has supported charitable programs in more than 50 countries, contributing more than $400 million per year the the Open Society Foundation alone.

Soros was involved early in efforts to finance nascent democratic movements in eastern Europe during the 1980's. However, his involvement in US politics did not really start until G. W. Bush became President. Soros believed that Bush's policies would destroy the country and the economic and political system that offered the world its best hope for freedom and growth. He committed tens of millions to these "liberal" political efforts and, as of today, has reportedly spent about $100 million for these political causes, or roughly the same amount reportedly spent by the Koch brothers in their support of conservative causes.

By any measure, both Soros and Murdoch have been extraordinarily effective capitalists -- one feeding off of the public's prurient interests and the other off its greed. Outside of their businesses, one -- Soros -- has proven himself to be one of the most generous philanthopists in history (sharing the podium with Gates and Buffett), while the other has proven himself to be one of the least. One has dedicated both money and time during the last 20 years to supporting politically liberal causes. The other has used the power of one of the largest media empires in history to support conservative causes for the last 50 years. Both are immigrants and naturalized citizens -- Soros coming to the US in 1956 and staying, Murdoch coming to the US in 1974 and staying long enough to get his citizenship so that he could expand his ownership of US communication properties. All in all, the only measure on which Murdoch seems to come out ahead, Marvin, is that you prefer his politics.

Uncle Bill
10-31-2010, 03:05 PM
For the dude with his head in the sand, as usual. Always funny how the liberal atheists see life through their rose-colored glasses, and then paint those that don't see it as they do, with THEIR form of bigotry. How hypocritical of you Yardley, but then you ARE consistant in your arrogance.

" By any measure, both Soros and Murdoch have been extraordinarily effective capitalists -- one feeding off of the public's prurient interests and the other off its greed. Outside of their businesses, one -- Soros -- has proven himself to be one of the most generous philanthopists in history (sharing the podium with Gates and Buffett), while the other has proven himself to be one of the least. One has dedicated both money and time during the last 20 years to supporting politically liberal causes. The other has used the power of one of the largest media empires in history to support conservative causes for the last 50 years. Both are immigrants and naturalized citizens -- Soros coming to the US in 1956 and staying, Murdoch coming to the US in 1974 and staying long enough to get his citizenship so that he could expand his ownership of US communication properties. All in all, the only measure on which Murdoch seems to come out ahead, Marvin, is that you prefer his politics."


Any "non-socialist" might give Mr. Murdoch kudos for all the jobs he has created...most of those jobs also pay a large amout in taxes, and I suspect, like most of us freedom-loving-non-government-dependant-welfareists, also pony up for charity.

Another 'trick' you libs enjoy is boxing names together, as if they are and have equal qualities. Soros doesn't hold a candle to Gates, who made his billions marketing a product, and making beacoups millionaires along the way. Buffet also was instrumental in putting millions of people on the path to investing for their personal welfare and retirement.

Soros, OTOH was a stock market scoundrel, benefitting primarily himself and his inner circle of shady caracters, always in the attempt to kill the American way of life. His philanthropy was done for his personal gain, much like Jesse Jackson's form of helping the Black population rise up in stature. Like the majority of libs/socialists, they love to keep the people on welfare and behoding to them, so they can stay in power over them.

And you and your ilk, Mr. Yardley, are the enablers of this form of "charity". You are the epitome of the group standing in line feeding the welfare recipients, as opposed to the folks teaching them how to fish so they can feed themselves.

You and the Obamaites of the nation never understand the importance of self respect that only comes by an individual taking responsibilty for their own welfare. You have succeeded in educating a dependant class in this nation, that don't have a clue HOW to fend for themselves.

What sticks in the craw of most truly responsible Americans, is not that you have developed this welfaristic attitude among your followers, but you then MUST belittle ALL the hard working folks providing for themselves and their families, that we aren't paying enough to help you keep these downtrodden souls on welfare, so you don't lose your power structure.

Well there are lots of us that think your Obama programs suck. I can only hope ALL of these 'lots' send you something-for-nothing crowd a message this Tuesday.

UB

zeus3925
10-31-2010, 03:27 PM
Undies in a bunch over Soros, are they? As far as I know this is America and he can spend his money where he pleases.

YardleyLabs
10-31-2010, 03:52 PM
For the dude with his head in the sand, as usual. Always funny how the liberal atheists see life through their rose-colored glasses, and then paint those that don't see it as they do, with THEIR form of bigotry. How hypocritical of you Yardley, but then you ARE consistant in your arrogance.

" By any measure, both Soros and Murdoch have been extraordinarily effective capitalists -- one feeding off of the public's prurient interests and the other off its greed. Outside of their businesses, one -- Soros -- has proven himself to be one of the most generous philanthopists in history (sharing the podium with Gates and Buffett), while the other has proven himself to be one of the least. One has dedicated both money and time during the last 20 years to supporting politically liberal causes. The other has used the power of one of the largest media empires in history to support conservative causes for the last 50 years. Both are immigrants and naturalized citizens -- Soros coming to the US in 1956 and staying, Murdoch coming to the US in 1974 and staying long enough to get his citizenship so that he could expand his ownership of US communication properties. All in all, the only measure on which Murdoch seems to come out ahead, Marvin, is that you prefer his politics."


Any "non-socialist" might give Mr. Murdoch kudos for all the jobs he has created...most of those jobs also pay a large amout in taxes, and I suspect, like most of us freedom-loving-non-government-dependant-welfareists, also pony up for charity.

Another 'trick' you libs enjoy is boxing names together, as if they are and have equal qualities. Soros doesn't hold a candle to Gates, who made his billions marketing a product, and making beacoups millionaires along the way. Buffet also was instrumental in putting millions of people on the path to investing for their personal welfare and retirement.

Soros, OTOH was a stock market scoundrel, benefitting primarily himself and his inner circle of shady caracters, always in the attempt to kill the American way of life. His philanthropy was done for his personal gain, much like Jesse Jackson's form of helping the Black population rise up in stature. Like the majority of libs/socialists, they love to keep the people on welfare and behoding to them, so they can stay in power over them.

And you and your ilk, Mr. Yardley, are the enablers of this form of "charity". You are the epitome of the group standing in line feeding the welfare recipients, as opposed to the folks teaching them how to fish so they can feed themselves.

You and the Obamaites of the nation never understand the importance of self respect that only comes by an individual taking responsibilty for their own welfare. You have succeeded in educating a dependant class in this nation, that don't have a clue HOW to fend for themselves.

What sticks in the craw of most truly responsible Americans, is not that you have developed this welfaristic attitude among your followers, but you then MUST belittle ALL the hard working folks providing for themselves and their families, that we aren't paying enough to help you keep these downtrodden souls on welfare, so you don't lose your power structure.

Well there are lots of us that think your Obama programs suck. I can only hope ALL of these 'lots' send you something-for-nothing crowd a message this Tuesday.

UB
I hear what you are saying Bill, bit I don't see any facts to support it.

It would be interesting to see a comparison of jobs created between Murdoch and Soros, although hard to measure. Murdoch has never been a creator of companies. Rather, he has always purchased existing companies and his first act following acquisition has often been a decimation of news staff. To credit him with jobs created, you would need to show more jobs following his acquisitions than existed before. Soros is a hedge fund guy. His billions have come from trading financial instruments. Without those trades, our financial systems would be less efficient in moving capital, which might actually have a tremendous impact on business investment and jobs. However, that would also be hard to show. I actually don't see wither man as a big producer of jobs. Rather, both seem best at scraping profits off the top of what other people have built. That is not bad, but is not in the same class as, for example, what Microsoft has done. Of course, all that is simply the opinion of one non-socialist who has earned his living over the last 30 years as a business owner and job creator. Both Soros and Murdoch has produced a lot of taxable and taxed income. Once again, it would be hard to measure who has created more. When it comes to taxes on business operations, both Murdoch and Soros have used off-shore companies and US tax rules creatively to avoid paying almost all business taxes on their massively profitable companies.

How have Soros' business activities been directed at destroying the American dream? How do philanthropic donations for education and health care (the primary focus of Soros' donations) undermine the American dream? How did financing anti-Communist movements in eastern Europe undermine the American dream? The fact is that conservatives have only one complaint about Soros -- his political contributions have gone to liberal causes instead of conservative ones. Change that and he would be the hero of freedom extolled by Republican leaders everywhere.

Buzz
10-31-2010, 10:12 PM
Buzz, you probably watch more of the rest of FOX in a week than I do in a year ;-). [/FONT]

I don't watch much, but I sure put a lot of listening time in on the Sirius Radio in the Dodge Ram. I would bet I listen to as much right wing radio as most anyone here at POTUS. :o

WRL
11-02-2010, 10:32 AM
I don't live in Wa but from what I've heard, Rossi is a crook. How many times has this guy lost a major election in Wa? Seems like this is at least his third.

I don't know if Rossi is a crook or not, BUT Patty Murray IS part of the problem. She's been in DC far too long. Time for a change. And if Rossi can't do the job, well we can find someone else in 6 years.

WRL

road kill
11-02-2010, 11:08 AM
Undies in a bunch over Soros, are they? As far as I know this is America and he can spend his money where he pleases.
And we can comment on it!:D


RK

Buzz
11-02-2010, 11:22 AM
I don't know if Rossi is a crook or not, BUT Patty Murray IS part of the problem. She's been in DC far too long. Time for a change. And if Rossi can't do the job, well we can find someone else in 6 years.

WRL

I see a lot of negative stuff about Murray on here. To be honest, I don't know a thing about her. What specifically don't you like about her, besides that she is a Democrat?

WRL
11-02-2010, 11:46 AM
I see a lot of negative stuff about Murray on here. To be honest, I don't know a thing about her. What specifically don't you like about her, besides that she is a Democrat?

Well, really to me, its not a matter of party. 18 years in office and we have this?? You have got to be kidding me. She needs to hit the road.

Second, not only is she democrat (which doesn't matter to me, I consider myself a conservative dem or a liberal rep) but she is basically a Pelosi shadow. WAY WAY too extreme.

WRL

dnf777
11-02-2010, 11:53 AM
Well, really to me, its not a matter of party. 18 years in office and we have this?? You have got to be kidding me. She needs to hit the road.

WRL

Just curious, based on that argument, will you be leading a charge against John Boehner and Mitch McConnel, since when they're up for reelection, they will have 50 years of combined incumbency? (Boehner 1990, McConnell 1985)

WRL
11-02-2010, 12:52 PM
Just curious, based on that argument, will you be leading a charge against John Boehner and Mitch McConnel, since when they're up for reelection, they will have 50 years of combined incumbency? (Boehner 1990, McConnell 1985)

I don't live in their states so I am not likely to lead anything. If I remember correctly, you have to live in the appropriate state in order to vote for these folks. Guess you need to be reminded of that seeing as that is how the liberals think.....vote often and wherever you can ;)

WRL

dnf777
11-02-2010, 12:57 PM
I don't live in their states so I am not likely to lead anything. If I remember correctly, you have to live in the appropriate state in order to vote for these folks. Guess you need to be reminded of that seeing as that is how the liberals think.....vote often and wherever you can ;)

WRL

Liberal. Its a funny word. Same root as "Liberty". Free.

Guess the right-wing extremists prefer having big gov't telling us what to do? Liberal is such a bad word.

Marvin S
11-02-2010, 03:57 PM
I see a lot of negative stuff about Murray on here. To be honest, I don't know a thing about her. What specifically don't you like about her, besides that she is a Democrat?

I guess that could best be summed up by Senate staffers who twice have voted her the least competent of all Senators holding office :o. She helps her constituency, which is not the working class :(, though she professes to have concern for them!!!!!!!