The American form of Government
That's a really interesting video.
Listening led me to
this- most interesting
The Romans were smart.
Men in the army may not wed until training is complete.
I like it. And women should wear veils?
What a pile of crap.
That should be your new usertitle
what exactly marks it as a pile of crap?
what exactly marks it as a pile of crap?
Their definition of left vs right, 30 seconds into the video.
What marks it as crap?
Asked and answered.
He's not talking about left and right as found in American politics, he's taking about the types of governments that we witnessed at work in the world and the fact that the biggies have the same goal of total power.
What's wrong with the definition given?
Asked and answered.
No you didn't answer it at all. What piece of information do you not agree with? What specifically is incorrectly explained? How could it be done better. Anyone can call something crap, it takes a little more to actually suggest you have a valid argument.
No you didn't answer it at all. What piece of information do you not agree with? What specifically is incorrectly explained? How could it be done better. Anyone can call something crap, it takes a little more to actually suggest you have a valid argument.
Yes, I answered it. The definition of the right vs left dichotomy given is a complete fabrication which has absolutely no basis in political theory or even dictionary definitions. It is meaningless Rush Limbaugh garbage, and can only be taken seriously by people who think Ann Coulter is highbrow reading.
Since the definition is the basis upon which the rest of the video is bases, the rest of the video is gibberish as well.
QED.
He's not talking about left and right as found in American politics, he's taking about the types of governments that we witnessed at work in the world and the fact that the biggies have the same goal of total power.
What's wrong with the definition given?
Other than the fact that fascism is in fact a far right ideology, by any standards save those of perhaps Sean Hannity and Limbaugh?
The definition is unmitigated crap, and reads no differently than the tards at Indymedia trying to claim that the Bush Doctrine was no different than Nazism.
Other than the fact that fascism is in fact a far right ideology, by any standards save those of perhaps Sean Hannity and Limbaugh?
The definition is unmitigated crap, and reads no differently than the tards at Indymedia trying to claim that the Bush Doctrine was no different than Nazism.
Equally amusing, according to this, anarchists (the vast majority of whom consider themselves leftwing) are apparently on the far right.
Its faux-libertarian garbage, the sort of petty rhetorical shift one finds in the works of von Mises and the type. Unfortunately for them, it has no standing in political science or analysis.
Equally amusing, according to this, anarchists (the vast majority of whom consider themselves leftwing) are apparently on the far right.
Its faux-libertarian garbage, the sort of petty rhetorical shift one finds in the works of von Mises and the type. Unfortunately for them, it has no standing in political science or analysis.
Pretty much.
So you disagree with his opinion that the political spectrum should be viewed as total power to no power, and dismiss the point of the piece, which is an explanation of the difference between a Republic and a Democracy, out of hand? Or do disagree with the differences stated?
So you disagree with his opinion that the political spectrum should be viewed as total power to no power,
Yes.
So does every reputable political science instructor and Websters, to boot.
It's a propaganda piece, and a rather clumsy one at that. Only this, and nothing more.
You disagree with his description of the difference between a republic and a democracy?
You disagree with his description of the difference between a republic and a democracy?
Dunno. I shut it off when he assaulted me with the first round of bullshit.
What's the point of continuing, once you've established that it's a badly done propaganda piece? Besides, the difference between a republic and a "pure" democracy is - or should be - known to school children. I do not need to have it explained by a man who just proved himself to be a liar, or a fool, or both.
Propadanda for what purpose? That doesn't even make sense.
Conspiracy theory much?
Dunno. I shut it off when he assaulted me with the first round of bullshit.
That's what I thought.
What's the point of continuing, once you've established that it's a badly done propaganda piece? Besides, the difference between a republic and a "pure" democracy is - or should be - known to school children.
You'd think so, but that's not true
I do not need to have it explained by a man who just proved himself to be a liar, or a fool, or both.
I see, so everyone that doesn't meet your preconceived notions "is a liar, or a fool or both". But you don't know if he was right or not because you didn't watch it.
Thank you.
Propadanda for what purpose? That doesn't even make sense.
Conspiracy theory much?
Propaganda for the libertarian pov, of course.
There is no rule saying that propaganda can only be put forth by the ruling party.
That's what I thought.
Sorry. There is, as E.E. Cummings said, some shit I will not eat.
You'd think so, but that's not true
Well, there's a solution for that.
I see, so everyone that doesn't meet your preconceived notions "is a liar, or a fool or both". But you don't know if he was right or not because you didn't watch it.
Thank you.
Once I smell shit, there's no reason to taste it, you know?
So you're saying that, after seeing that video, I might change my entire ideology?
I saw it as a theory, another pov, and hardly akin to what I might see as evil prop.
But what do I know?
I did not click the link and watch the video. But I understand and agree with TGGR's point that there is a limit to what I am willing to put into my head, just as there's a limit to what I'll put into my body. What's more, all of you here are the same as me in this respect, albeit with different levels of what is taken in.
An easy point in the evaluation of the video producer's point of view is at the beginning. The American Form of Government, right there in the title. Some will read that and decide they've had enough, moving on, thankyouverymuch. They've made their decision about how much of that message they wish to take in--very little. Others will read the title, watch the video, and decide that they've gotten all they want of the message, and not bother seeking more. TGGR has done exactly the same thing, but the point at which he made his decision was part the way through the video--click.
We all do this. We all regulate what we take in. And there's certainly plenty of room for spirited discussion about the quality and the quantity of that content. I read and listen to the news a lot. Some people think I give too much attention to the news. Just ask SonofV as we ride together and negotiate what radio station to listen to.
The proverb "Don't judge a book by its cover" has merit. But it is possible to judge a book by a short summary.
I, myself, can't handle vague opinions from people who didn't bother to watch.
How very shortsighted. In fact, I'll go so far to say that those opinions from people who are forming them without any knowledge have gone completely irrelevant for me. Never a post I will take into account from those, again.
And there's certainly plenty of room for spirited discussion about the quality and the quantity of that content.
Not if you don't know what the content is.
My point, and I thing TGGR's point is, that there comes a time when *enough* is known to make an actionable decision.
There are a million topics about which I know very little. Most of those topics have a depth of content that I haven't plumbed, that I haven't even skimmed. Some of those topics I disregard because I'm not interested in what I see in the title. Some I ignore because of who is talking about it. Others I don't bother with because the little I've seen is dumb. But in all those cases, we could have a talk about how much is too much and what is crap and what is not--even knowing little about the content.
Are you suggesting to me otherwise? Does your world have no gossips? No busybodies? No clueless bosses talking out their asses? No salespeople promising stuff they don't know about? No relatives that know more about your life and how you should live it than you do? Really? Then I'd like a ticket to your world, please. Because in my world, people talk all the time about stuff they don't know about. I'd like to vacation in xoB land. It would be quite refreshing, I imagine.
Yeah, I got that. But you said;
And there's certainly plenty of room for spirited discussion about the quality and the quantity of that content.
My response is, there is too much spirited discussion by people that don't know what the fuck they're talking about, because they couldn't be bothered to find out what the content is, or decided they knew by some magical powers. I see it in the media, the real world, and here in the Cellar, people who become an expert from a sound bite.
There are many things I'd rather not see or hear. But I don't comment on content if I can't be bothered to check it out.
Really, it could have warranted spirited discussion, from which I hoped to glean some ideas. The horsey side blinds don't impress me.
You disagree with his description of the difference between a republic and a democracy?
I do.... what a load of garbage
OK,so finished reading the rest of the posts after that... if you didn't watch the whole thing, you probably should before commenting further. Yeah, it's propaganda, but it is well worded and in the main summarizes stuff pretty well.
But then...
it goes on to give an example of democracy vs a rebublic in a Wild West scenario.... and it turn into utter BS at that point.
Democracy would not have lynched the guy on the spot-that's scaremongering BS. Just because all present were in favor of hanging the guy, that does not mean the majority of socity is. there would have been a trial, same as with the "republic" The video claimed Democracy but showed Oligarcy.
They not only would, they did, repeatedly. The posse/ lynch mob only work on the consensus of the people present. If 50% said hang 'em and nobody forces them to stop, they hanged 'em.
Yeah, I got that. But you said; My response is, there is too much spirited discussion by people that don't know what the fuck they're talking about, because they couldn't be bothered to find out what the content is, or decided they knew by some magical powers. I see it in the media, the real world, and here in the Cellar, people who become an expert from a sound bite.
Once I hear someone lie to me, I don't need any further information from them.
Democracy would not have lynched the guy on the spot-
Actually, democracy was pretty good for that.
Google "Ostrokos".
I, myself, can't handle vague opinions from people who didn't bother to watch.
I did watch. Until the bullshit got too thick.
It's interesting how you conveniently ignore that fact.
Meh.
A spirited discussion is possible without it being an informed discussion.
Democracy would not have lynched the guy on the spot-that's scaremongering BS. Just because all present were in favor of hanging the guy, that does not mean the majority of socity is. there would have been a trial, same as with the "republic" The video claimed Democracy but showed Oligarcy.
What if the posse represented the society.
Once I hear someone lie to me, I don't need any further information from them.
Thanks. We got that already.
A spirited discussion is possible without it being an informed discussion.
Welcome to the interwebz :rolleyes:
Thanks. We got that already.
Not according to Shawnee.
Not according to Shawnee.
Now there's a source! :lol2:
Now there's a source! :lol2:
Sorry, I wasn't aware that I wasn't supposed to respond to her.
You and Classicman should warn people about these rules in advance.
How about you guys both go fuck yourselves? Could you do that, hmmmm?
Fucking assholes should be banned for being fucking assholes. At the very least, merc's constant spread of shit ought to be seriously looked at.
So your approach is better, to talk down to me like I'm a blithering idiot? That does not give you any credibility here, not with the mostly thoughtful and thinking persons here whose opinion means more than just a big pile of steaming shit.
Oh, and go fuck yourselve. Better yet, fuck each other. You can whisper sweet shit to each the entire time and it'll probably be the best sex you've ever had.
And EAD.
How about you guys both go fuck yourselves? Could you do that, hmmmm?
Fucking assholes should be banned for being fucking assholes. At the very least, merc's constant spread of shit ought to be seriously looked at.
So your approach is better, to talk down to me like I'm a blithering idiot? That does not give you any credibility here, not with the mostly thoughtful and thinking persons here whose opinion means more than just a big pile of steaming shit.
Oh, and go fuck yourselve. Better yet, fuck each other. You can whisper sweet shit to each the entire time and it'll probably be the best sex you've ever had.
And EAD.
Well, that was an interesting little outburst.
Take a step back, Shaw. They aren't the reason you're angry.
Thats good advice Shawnee, however, Merc is the true asshowl around here, so I know where you are coming from and why you responded that way...;) .
They may not be the whole reason for my anger, but they were huge contributors to the cause. Seriously, wtf was that? And this TGGR guy, what's he, like Asshole Runner Up in case TehMercenary can't fulfill his duties of King Asshole?
Fuck. That.
Eh, I think we got through our problems a while ago. ;)
Some people, though, you can't be nice to.
They may not be the whole reason for my anger, but they were huge contributors to the cause. Seriously, wtf was that? And this TGGR guy, what's he, like Asshole Runner Up in case TehMercenary can't fulfill his duties of King Asshole?
Fuck. That.
Yeah, except that I'm not a raging neocon.
Sorry TGRR. I see now that you really had little to do with the whole mess.
I'm bowing out.
I see it in the media, the real world, and here in the Cellar, people who become an expert from a sound bite.
Those are not always the problem. The problem are the few who only have a sound byte and get attached only to that sound byte. They cannot expand beyond and embrace a larger picture.
Many with soundbyte knowledge use it as bait to attract larger knowledge. Not everyone does that.
I can't understand how a person can logically claim to have valid input in a discussion if they're not informed on the topic ie. they've watched the video or read the OP etc.
So you think it's crap. Fine, but don't waste bandwidth starting an argument if you don't even know what you're commenting on.
Merc...did you really have to?
I can't understand how a person can logically claim to have valid input in a discussion if they're not informed on the topic ie. they've watched the video or read the OP etc.
So you think it's crap. Fine, but don't waste bandwidth starting an argument if you don't even know what you're commenting on.
Merc...did you really have to?
Again...if you watch long enough to see one major lie/distortion, you've seen enough.
Yeah, and if you keep arguing even though you're uninformed you look like a dick.
TThe problem are the few who only have a sound byte and get attached only to that sound byte. They cannot expand beyond and embrace a larger picture.
cheap/They respond to polls a lot too/shot :right:
What do they call that thing where you carry 1,000 pounds of your most heavy-handed bias into every exchange of information, thus allowing you to make instant snap judgments based on almost no tangible informaton whatsoever, thus guaranteeing that your body of knowledge remains a stagnant, static platform from which you can shout hollow proclamations of superiority?
Well, that was an interesting little outburst.
:mg:
What do they call that thing where you carry 1,000 pounds of your most heavy-handed bias into every exchange of information, thus allowing you to make instant snap judgments based on almost no tangible informaton whatsoever, thus guaranteeing that your body of knowledge remains a stagnant, static platform from which you can shout hollow proclamations of superiority?
Apparently, sanctioned idiocy. That's what I'm calling it.
Yeah, and if you keep arguing even though you're uninformed you look like a dick.
I'm comfortable with that, if the alternative is being forced to eat the entire shit sandwich before you can say it tastes bad.
What do they call that thing where you carry 1,000 pounds of your most heavy-handed bias into every exchange of information, thus allowing you to make instant snap judgments based on almost no tangible informaton whatsoever, thus guaranteeing that your body of knowledge remains a stagnant, static platform from which you can shout hollow proclamations of superiority?
Internet political discussions.
No. They call that your early, formative years of internet political discussions, while you're still thrashing around like a two-year-old who has learned to assert their independance but hasn't learned how to master their temper tantrums; before you gain a little maturity and begin to understand that finding the kernel of truth in your opponent's argument means that you actually learned something that day. We all have our less than flattering moments, but as they say about cheating in school, you're only hurting yourself.
...before you gain a little maturity and begin to understand that finding the kernel of truth in your opponent's argument means that you actually learned something that day.
Words of wisdom.
No. They call that your early, formative years of internet political discussions, while you're still thrashing around like a two-year-old who has learned to assert their independance but hasn't learned how to master their temper tantrums;
:lol:
I see. Because I refuse to swallow shit, I'm "thrashing around".
:lol:
you call something shit without delving into the issue then go to great lengths explaining why you're too superior to discuss it, that is why you appear to be thrashing around.
you call something shit without delving into the issue then go to great lengths explaining why you're too superior to discuss it, that is why you appear to be thrashing around.
Where did I say I was too superior to discuss it? Be specific, please.
i saw the crap definition of right/left at the beginning and being a glutton for punishment i kept watching to the end..
it never got any better
i have no reputation on this forum for insightful political discourse so ignore my review and go ahead and watch it..
i recommend setting your BS detector on high
but you don't have to follow that recommendation either...
They may not be the whole reason for my anger, but they were huge contributors to the cause. Seriously, wtf was that? And this TGGR guy, what's he, like Asshole Runner Up in case TehMercenary can't fulfill his duties of King Asshole?
Fuck. That.
WOw missed this one too. Good idea. Blame a bunch of 1's and 0's on a Forum for your personal problems. :lol2:
No. They call that your early, formative years of internet political discussions, while you're still thrashing around like a two-year-old who has learned to assert their independance but hasn't learned how to master their temper tantrums; before you gain a little maturity and begin to understand that finding the kernel of truth in your opponent's argument means that you actually learned something that day. We all have our less than flattering moments, but as they say about cheating in school, you're only hurting yourself.
You are a wise man, Flint. :lol2:
And here we have a truely American Form of American Government, the demoncratic double standard. Where is the outcry. NPR did a great show on this subject yesterday.
Firm with Murtha Ties Got Earmarks From Nearly One-Fourth of House
By Jonathan Allen and Alex Knott, CQ Staff
More than 100 House members secured earmarks in a major spending bill for clients of a single lobbying firm — The PMA Group — known for its close ties to John P. Murtha , the congressman in charge of Pentagon appropriations.
“It shows you how good they were,” said Keith Ashdown, chief investigator at the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. “The sheer coordination of that would take an army to finish.”
PMA’s offices have been raided, and the firm closed its political action committee last week amid reports that the FBI is investigating possibly illegal campaign contributions to Murtha and other lawmakers.
No matter what the outcome of the federal investigation, PMA’s earmark success illustrates how a well-connected lobbying firm operates on Capitol Hill. And earmark accountability rules imposed by the Democrats in 2007 make it possible to see how extensively PMA worked the Hill for its clients.
In the spending bill managed by Murtha, the fiscal 2008 Defense appropriation, 104 House members got earmarks for projects sought by PMA clients, according to Congressional Quarterly’s analysis of a database constructed by Ashdown’s group.
See CQ's list of House members who secured earmarks for clients of The PMA Group in the fiscal 2008 defense appropriations law.
Those House members, plus a handful of senators, combined to route nearly $300 million in public money to clients of PMA through that one law (PL 110-116).
And when the lawmakers were in need — as they all are to finance their campaigns — PMA came through for them.
According to CQ MoneyLine, the same House members who took responsibility for PMA’s earmarks in that spending bill have, since 2001, accepted a cumulative $1,815,138 in campaign contributions from PMA’s political action committee and employees of the firm.
Friends in High Places
PMA’s founder, Paul Magliocchetti, is a former House Appropriations Committee aide who has a long-running relationship with Murtha, D-Pa., the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.
Murtha, who used to boast that his middle initial stands for “power,” carved out $38.1 million for PMA clients in the fiscal 2008 defense spending law, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Indiana Rep. Peter J. Visclosky , who serves on Murtha’s subcommittee and additionally is chairman of the subcommittee that allocates money for the Pentagon’s nuclear programs, earmarked $23.8 million for PMA clients in the fiscal 2008 defense spending bill.
His former chief of staff, Richard Kaelin, lobbies for PMA, as does Melissa Koloszar, a former top aide to defense appropriator James P. Moran , D-Va.
Moran sponsored $10.8 million for PMA clients, and Rep. Norm Dicks , D-Wash., another member of the subcommittee, sponsored $12.1 million.
Spokesmen for Murtha and Visclosky did not respond to requests for comment.
Spending Freely
Of the 104 lawmakers who lent their names to earmark requests for PMA clients in the fiscal 2008 Pentagon spending law, 91 have, since 2001, received campaign money linked to PMA, either from its political action committee or its employees. The group is pretty evenly divided — 54 Democrats, 50 Republicans.
Overall, since 2001, PMA’s PAC and its employees together have poured $3.3 million into the coffers of congressional campaign committees and so-called leadership political action committees that support the ambitions of lawmakers who want to raise their profile.
In reviewing the millions of dollars of campaign contributions made by PMA or its employees, CQ excluded from its totals money from individuals whose employment by PMA could not be confirmed. Those unverifiable donations added up to less than $50,000.
Visclosky raked in $219,000 in campaign donations from PMA and its employees since 2001. That’s more money than he spent in three of his 13 elections.
Murtha’s political committees have collected $143,600 in contributions from PMA’s employees and its political action committee during the same period.
Moran ranks third, having taken $125,250 in PMA contributions since 2001.
Dicks is fourth at $91,600.
Rep. John B. Larson , the Democratic Caucus chairman, can attribute $37,850 worth of campaign money to PMA sources.
PMA was less generous with the campaign committees of other legislative leaders.
Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer , D-Md., got $16,000 in PMA-connected contributions during that time; House Speaker Nancy Pelosi received $4,500; and Majority Whip James E. Clyburn of South Carolina received $3,000.
Of the Democratic leaders, only Pelosi could be documented as having secured an earmark for a PMA client in the first Democratic-written Defense spending bill: $2 million for SA Photonics’ Satellite Coherent Optical Receiver.
Of the top 20 House recipients of PMA money since 2001, only Larson did not guide any earmarks to PMA clients in the fiscal 2008 Pentagon spending bill.
PMA and its employees have not given campaign money to the top three House Republican leaders, John A. Boehner of Ohio, Eric Cantor of Virginia and Mike Pence of Indiana.
It is clear from PMA’s earmark success, though, that it didn’t need the intervention of top leaders.
And though some of its political money went to Senate campaigns, PMA’s earmark success was clearly the result of efforts in the House, and particularly its efforts with the clutch of Democratic defense appropriators closest to Murtha.
“By and large their strength is nobody was better or more capable of moving the House Defense Subcommittee when it came to these matters,” Ashdown said.
No Overhead?
Curiously, in the last four election cycles, PMA’s political action committee reported expenses of only $18, according to federal campaign finance reports compiled by CQ MoneyLine.
It reported no payroll costs.
The $18 was for re-ordering checks and another bank fee.
Now that PMA has been the focus of news reports, several lawmakers have said they’ll give away some of their campaign money.
“My campaign has informed me that the PMA Group has made contributions to my re-election committee in past years. I have directed that all contributions ever received from the PMA Group be returned to them,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren , D-Calif., chairwoman of the House ethics committee. “I do so without making any comment to the veracity of the allegations against PMA Group.”
Aides to Visclosky and Sen. Bill Nelson , D-Fla., also have told reporters that a portion of campaign money would be returned.
Murtha’s Corner
The inventory of PMA’s contributions and earmark benefactors includes a number of House members who have clout by association, because they are Murtha’s friends or his proteges in the Pennsylvania delegation — a group that congregates along the southeast edge of the House chamber in what’s been known for years as Murtha’s corner.
Among the top 20 recipients of PMA campaign dollars since 2001 are Pennsylvania Democrats Mike Doyle ($69,400), Tim Holden ($57,275), Paul Kanjorski ($37,150) and Chris Carney ($38,500) — even though Carney was first elected in 2006.
In the PMA donation top 30 are Pennsylvania Reps. Patrick J. Murphy ($29,250), Allyson Y. Schwartz ($25,000) and Jason Altmire ($24,500). Schwartz was first elected in 2004, and Altmire and Murphy first won their seats in 2006.
Those Pennsylvanians combined for $17.3 million in PMA earmarks in the single fiscal 2008 bill shepherded by Murtha.
Rep. Michael E. Capuano , who is often only partially visible in the House chamber because he stands behind Murtha’s back row with his arms over the railing, has taken $54,000 in campaign contributions from PMA sources in the last eight years.
In the fiscal 2008 bill, he requested a successful $2 million earmark for Parametric Technology Corporation, a PMA-represented information systems company with offices near Capuano’s Boston-based district and in Murtha’s district in western Pennsylvania.
Capuano also secured $800,000 in that bill for another one of the lobbying firm’s clients.
The list of lawmakers who have guided money to PMA clients also includes Republicans, most prominently Reps. C.W. “Bill” Young of Florida and Jerry Lewis of California.
Young, the top Republican on Murtha’s subcommittee, won $20.4 million in earmarks for PMA clients, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense. Lewis, the top Republican on the full Appropriations Committee, secured $8 million.
PMA’s customers, of course, turned the tax dollars they received into products and services for the government and profits for their companies.
As a cost of getting that business, they paid PMA nearly $16.4 million in 2007, according to congressional disclosure reports.
No lobbying firm specializing in Defense clients took in more money that year.
Until recently, PMA had 34 lobbyists on payroll, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
By comparison, the firm Holland and Knight, which made $15,000 more than PMA on lobbying in 2007, has 73 lobbyists and Patton Boggs, which took in more than $43 million in 2007, has 151 lobbyists, according to CRP.
It’s capitalism, Capitol Hill style.
“There has been a system put in place in this town and they are playing by the system,” a well-connected Republican lobbyist said of PMA. “They’re good at it, and the bottom line on good here is generating revenues.”
First posted Feb. 19, 2009 5:52 a.m.
Correction
Corrects to say House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md., got $16,000 in PMA-connected contributions since 2001.
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003055541The NPR story:
Morning Edition, February 19, 2009 · One of Washington's most successful lobbying firms is on the verge of closing down. In November, FBI agents seized documents from the Northern Virginia offices of The PMA Group. There are questions regarding campaign contributions and the firm's ties to House Democrats such as John Murtha of Pennsylvania.
The PMA Group was founded 20 years ago by Paul Magliocchetti, who was a longtime aide to Murtha. It has specialized in lobbying the House Appropriations Committee, for which Murtha heads the subcommittee on defense. PMA also has ties to several other committee Democrats.
Over the past 10 years, the firm made nearly $114 million in lobbying fees, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And its clients have done very well.
In fiscal 2008, clients got a total of 154 earmarks, or special spending provisions that appropriators wrote just for them.
But at the end of last year, two things happened. The firm's principals couldn't agree over financial terms as Magliocchetti moved toward retirement. PMA's lobbyists began heading for the exit, and FBI agents raided the office and carted off boxes of documents.
Now PMA is all but defunct, and some lawmakers are divesting themselves of contributions from PMA donors.
The case delivers a jarring blow to congressional Democrats, who won control of Capitol Hill in 2006 with a promise to "drain the swamp."
"This looks like the same old politics that the Republicans were playing, where they're playing pay-to-play — you give us a donation, we'll give you an earmark," says Keith Ashdown, who tracks legislative earmarks at the watchdog group Taxpayers For Common Sense.
Murtha has made a career of using earmarks to bring home jobs to his district in southwestern Pennsylvania, where many defense contractors have facilities. And his campaign war chest is top-heavy with contributions from PMA clients.
"Money sloshes around Washington. I think we all know that," Ashdown says. "What we have learned is that 14 House Democrats — PMA was their No. 1 contributor."
The company itself can't give donations. The money came from PMA's 35 employees and from its political action committee.
Among the PMA donors were two of the company's board members, who are friends of Magliocchetti from Florida, where he has a beach condo. In campaign reports, contributions from the two Floridians often appear to be coordinated — same day, same dollar amount, same recipient.
That could suggest PMA was making the contributions in their names, which would be illegal.
Jim Moran, a Democrat from Northern Virginia, wrote eight earmarks for PMA clients in the 2008 budget. Moran's office says he's closely following the situation but won't act "until there's clear evidence something improper occurred."
Another big beneficiary of PMA contributions is Pennsylvania Democrat Christopher Carney, a protege of Murtha's. His communications director says that "if the authorities find any donation to be improper, we will immediately give that contribution to charity."
House Ethics Committee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren received $7,000 over the past decade from The PMA Group's PAC. The California Democrat has issued a statement saying that she is returning the money, but "without making any comment to the veracity of the allegations against PMA Group."
Murtha's office didn't respond to phone and e-mail messages Wednesday.
At the University of Maryland, professor Paul Herrnson has examined the interaction of lobbying and campaign money. He says many lobbyists will come to one conclusion: It pays to give.
"After all, if I am seen by a member of Congress who's in a powerful position as a member of their re-election team, they also might be more likely to consider me a member of their policy team," Herrnson says.
The PMA probe comes on the heels of a separate federal investigation in Murtha's home district.
Last month, agents from the FBI, the IRS and the Pentagon's inspector general raided the properties of Kuchera Industries, another recipient of earmarks from Murtha.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100850606Merc, I think we should change your name to Cassandra.
No. They call that your early, formative years of internet political discussions, while you're still thrashing around like a two-year-old who has learned to assert their independance but hasn't learned how to master their temper tantrums; before you gain a little maturity and begin to understand that finding the kernel of truth in your opponent's argument means that you actually learned something that day. We all have our less than flattering moments, but as they say about cheating in school, you're only hurting yourself.
If it looks like bullsihit and smells like bullshilt.....its probably bullshit ;)
Recognizing bullshit is party of the learning process as well.
Thee is little knowledge gained from post's consisting of editorials with an agenda that can be so easily picked apart for accuracy by objective observers (e.g. "the bill means government will take over your health decisions", "$millions for Pelosi's mouse project", "Obama wants to gerrymander Congressional seats", "not as bad as the Vince Foster coverup", etc) , accompanied by sarcastic one liners....other than perhaps, a bit about the poster's mindset.
But , IMO, such posts hardly qualify as contributing to insightful discourse.
Why do you say that Dana? This post seems to have some merit to it.
Redux? no thoughts or opinions on that article?
Redux? no thoughts or opinions on that article?
Blinded by Bush Hate Syndrome.
If it looks like bullsihit and smells like bullshilt.....its probably bullshit ;)
I love the alternate spellings - :p
Blinded by Bush Hate Syndrome.
I don't think so at all. Although he is new here, I think he has a different perspective than you, obviously, but is levelheaded enough. I'm seriously interested in his opinions.
I'm seriously interested in his opinions.
I was too. Until he failed to recognize the choice of "agree to disagree" and move on to another issue.
Redux? no thoughts or opinions on that article?
Here is an example:
A thread called "Dems Junkets on the taxpayer dime"....museums shows, fine dining?
What was the point?
Foreign policy trips are unique to Democrats? The third highest elected official in the country shouldnt meet the Pope?
Hell, the article in the link had nothing to do with foreign policy oversight, which, btw, is absolutely the role of Congress...foreign policy is not limited to the Sec. of State
If it looks like bullshit and smells like bullshit...its bullshit.
What could one learn from that thread?
IMO, That was another example of bullshit....and it would be a waste of time by attempting to discuss it with Merc.
What a pile of crap.
what exactly marks it as a pile of crap?
Their definition of left vs right, 30 seconds into the video.
What marks it as crap?
Asked and answered.
No you didn't answer it at all. What piece of information do you not agree with? What specifically is incorrectly explained? How could it be done better. Anyone can call something crap, it takes a little more to actually suggest you have a valid argument.
Yes, I answered it. The definition of the right vs left dichotomy given is a complete fabrication which has absolutely no basis in political theory or even dictionary definitions. It is meaningless Rush Limbaugh garbage, and can only be taken seriously by people who think Ann Coulter is highbrow reading.
Since the definition is the basis upon which the rest of the video is bases, the rest of the video is gibberish as well.
QED.
...
Recognizing bullshit is party of the learning process as well.
A useful definition for bullshit is: that which cannot be backed up with logical reasoning and/or that which has only been backed up with specious reasoning (i.e. no attempt has been made to employee logical reasoning). In the above quoted exchange, where do you see the most critical thinking skills being utilized? This isn't intended as a critique of any individual user, but rather a case study in clear thought processes.
...
A useful definition for bullshit is: that which cannot be backed up with logical reasoning and/or that which has only been backed up with specious reasoning (i.e. no attempt has been made to employee logical reasoning). In the above quoted exchange, where do you see the more critical thinking skills being utilized?
You have no argument from me on the quotes you cited.
I simply cited, what IMO, was the most recent example of bullshit.
I guess I just wanted to clarify that I was referencing a specific event.
Blinded by Bush Hate Syndrome.
You don't have to be blind to hate Bush.
...
A useful definition for bullshit is: that which cannot be backed up with logical reasoning and/or that which has only been backed up with specious reasoning
Or it could be defined as "making up new definitions as the primary support for your argument"...ie, the utter bullshit definition of the left vs right dichotomy in the video or, you know, your post that I am quoting.
Douche.
Hit a nerve, did I?
Or it could be defined as "making up new definitions as the primary support for your argument"...ie, the utter bullshit definition of the left vs right dichotomy in the video or, you know, your post that I am quoting.
He's pointing out what you want to call "left" and "right" have the same result of total government control. Making a new chart from total control on one side and no government control makes more sense to me. He could have reversed it and put total control on the right side, and still make his point, but you seem to be so hung up on the "left" & "right" labels you're missing his point.
Anyway, it was not primary support for his explanation(not argument) of the difference between a Democracy and a Republic. They would fall in between the extremes no matter what you put on the "right/left"
He's pointing out what you want to call "left" and "right" have the same result of total government control. Making a new chart from total control on one side and no government control makes more sense to me.
A guy named Jerry Pournelle did that, back in the 60s.
One axis of a cartesian plane was state control. Far left (on the graph) was no control or regulation at all, far right was utter control of every facet of life.
The vertical axis was economic. The lower end was no taxation or public services whatsoever, and the upper end was stifling taxation at every income level.
This allows you to plot yourself on the graph, and allows differentation between Stalin and Jefferson (on the "left"), and between Hitler and William Howard Taft (on the "right").
That sounds like a better way to define the possibilities more accurately.
Why?
Because I said it, and Flint is all butthurt with me right now. :lol:
Right, I sign off on whatever else TGRR says. TGRR is unstoppable!
You should see his filing techniques.
This allows you to plot yourself on the graph, and allows differentation between Stalin and Jefferson (on the "left"), and between Hitler and William Howard Taft (on the "right").
This is different but serves the same purpose.
It does? :eyebrow:
Kinda. Except that "Left" and "Right" are essentially meaningless terms.
I think they're using it to describe spending, since the state control issue is already on the graph.
You should see his filing techniques.
"Jam it in the hopper."
Right, I sign off on whatever else TGRR says. TGRR is unstoppable!
It's on account of my stunning good looks.
I find it too limiting, and doesn't begin to cover the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, which is where we started.
This is different but serves the same purpose.
Isn't that the
Political Compass? As in,
the political compass?
Redux, can you find that chart you speak of? The only thing I can find is the Pournelle Chart which looks like this...Is this it?
It is. There is also the
Nolan chart.
I'm sorry, this is the only chart that matters:
Yes, I answered it. The definition of the right vs left dichotomy given is a complete fabrication which has absolutely no basis in political theory or even dictionary definitions. It is meaningless Rush Limbaugh garbage, and can only be taken seriously by people who think Ann Coulter is highbrow reading.
bwahahahahahahahaha :lol2:
I'm sorry, this is the only chart that matters:
Your
right, as usual. ;)
Equally amusing, according to this, anarchists (the vast majority of whom consider themselves leftwing) are apparently on the far right.
Its faux-libertarian garbage, the sort of petty rhetorical shift one finds in the works of von Mises and the type. Unfortunately for them, it has no standing in political science or analysis.
Anarchists are libertarians, and can fall on either side of the spectrum. Most of the people I know are liberals, and quite a few of them consider themselves anarchist/socialists. And no, those two concepts do not clash. They fit together quite nicely.
Anarchists are libertarians, and can fall on either side of the spectrum. Most of the people I know are liberals, and quite a few of them consider themselves anarchist/socialists. And no, those two concepts do not clash. They fit together quite nicely.
That is a crazy assumption.
I'm sorry, this is the only chart that matters:
I love it. :D
That is a crazy assumption.
Why?
And it is not an assumption.
Just because anarchist/socialists share some common views about government does not mean they are even close on the spectrum of common thinking.
Anarchists are almost always considered leftists. Anarcho-capitalists can technically be considered anarchists because they share the same ideas about a lack of state but they do not share the same ideas on equality, labor, and just about everything on an economic scale, which many anarchists consider an essential part of anarchy.
Anarchists are almost always considered leftists.
Except for the Libertarian Party, and anything involving Ayn Rand.
But the other two guys are leftists, sure.
I havent met many anarchists who weren't lefties, but that might be because I am in the UK. I think our political spectrum is subtly different.
I'm sorry, this is the only chart that matters:
I havent met many anarchists who weren't lefties, but that might be because I am in the UK. I think our political spectrum is subtly different.
Anarcho-capitialists exist in the United States but anything that has the legitimate label of anarchist is leftists. That's what I have seen at least.
Anarcho-capitialists ...
I thought that was a kind of techno.
Libertarians are both left and right. It depends on the KIND of libertarianism you support (corporate, personal, or both). Same goes with anarchy. It doesn't matter what country you're in.
Just because anarchist/socialists share some common views about government does not mean they are even close on the spectrum of common thinking.
That's because you don't understand the concepts then, or aren't willing to look at them objectively. If you can't see where they are compatible, then I'm not going to explain it to you. I've done that numerous times on SMN, and I know you've read the argument. On most political charts (like some of the ones posted in this thread), anarchists and socialists are in the same quadrant.
Libertarians are both left and right. It depends on the KIND of libertarianism you support (corporate, personal, or both). Same goes with anarchy. It doesn't matter what country you're in.
I see, now you want to qualify it. Mk.
whatever dude. you are just being argumentative.
whatever dude. you are just being argumentative.
Not whatever, back up your statement. They are not similar ideas.
Look it up. Every political chart out there supports my statement. At least, every chart I've seen. In fact, look at some od the charts already posted, and go read about them.
fixed ur chart
I beg to differ. I have known some very smart douchebags. For example: an ex-boyfriend who has a PhD in math and now teaches at CalTech. He once threw a math textbook at my head. I am willing to concede, however, that very few people can successfully populate quadrant I.
He once threw a math textbook at my head.
Just be glad he wasn't a historian...weighty tomes
He threw a math textbook at you? That...isn't very smart. QED™
Well, it's possible I might have been a legitimate threat to his safety at the time. One can never tell.
I saw this video in revleft.com (morons), one of them said “if a republic is the rule of law as opposed to the rule of the mob, then who makes the laws?”…. I think thats a misconception, the republic’s constitution is the higher law of the country that guaranties respect for the property and rights of all their citizens and according to that principles all the other laws are created by representatives elected by the people who also must respect and honor the constitution.
Although it focuses on the political issues rather than economic differences of totalitarian governments it is undeniable that all of them opposed political and economic freedom.
Libertarians are both left and right. It depends on the KIND of libertarianism you support (corporate, personal, or both). Same goes with anarchy. It doesn't matter what country you're in.
Left libertarians are ignorant people who full themselvs believing they can be free without private property and individual rights.
Libertarianism may have started as a left ideology but it has evolved to a greater concept of personal liberty, respect for the rights of the individual and political and economic freedom.
:welcome: Wraith. Enjoy your time here. Hope you've got thick skin if you're planning on spending much time in the politics forum. ;)