Can You Guess Without Googling? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


FirmhandKY -> Can You Guess Without Googling? (11/18/2011 12:08:02 PM)

I would ask that you do not Google the net to find out who said this.  I will give a link to it, later.

What I wish for everyone to guess is ... what are the political leanings of the writer and would you support a person who believes this?

Extracts:

Mark Twain famously wrote, "There is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress." Peter Schweizer's new book, "Throw Them All Out," reveals this permanent political class in all its arrogant glory.

Mr. Schweizer answers the questions so many of us have asked.

...

How do politicians who arrive in Washington, D.C. as men and women of modest means leave as millionaires? How do they miraculously accumulate wealth at a rate faster than the rest of us? How do politicians' stock portfolios outperform even the best hedge-fund managers'? I answered the question in that speech: Politicians derive power from the authority of their office and their access to our tax dollars, and they use that power to enrich and shield themselves.

The money-making opportunities for politicians are myriad, and Mr. Schweizer details the most lucrative methods: accepting sweetheart gifts of IPO stock from companies seeking to influence legislation, practicing insider trading with nonpublic government information, earmarking projects that benefit personal real estate holdings, and even subtly extorting campaign donations through the threat of legislation unfavorable to an industry. The list goes on and on, and it's sickening.

Astonishingly, none of this is technically illegal, at least not for Congress. Members of Congress exempt themselves from the laws they apply to the rest of us. That includes laws that protect whistleblowers (nothing prevents members of Congress from retaliating against staffers who shine light on corruption) and Freedom of Information Act requests (it's easier to get classified documents from the CIA than from a congressional office).

The corruption isn't confined to one political party or just a few bad apples. It's an endemic problem encompassing leadership on both sides of the aisle. It's an entire system of public servants feathering their own nests.

...

The moment you threaten to strip politicians of their legal graft, they'll moan that they can't govern effectively without it. Perhaps they'll gravitate toward reform, but often their idea of reform is to limit the right of "We the people" to exercise our freedom of speech in the political process.

...

the only solution to entrenched corruption is sudden and relentless reform. Sudden because our permanent political class is adept at changing the subject to divert the public's attention—and we can no longer afford to be indifferent to this system of graft when our country is going bankrupt. Reform must be relentless because fighting corruption is like a game of whack-a-mole. You knock it down in one area only to see it pop up in another.

What are the solutions? We need reform that provides real transparency. Congress should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act like everyone else. We need more detailed financial disclosure reports, and members should submit reports much more often than once a year. All stock transactions above $5,000 should be disclosed within five days.

We need equality under the law. From now on, laws that apply to the private sector must apply to Congress, including whistleblower, conflict-of-interest and insider-trading laws. Trading on nonpublic government information should be illegal both for those who pass on the information and those who trade on it. (This should close the loophole of the blind trusts that aren't really blind because they're managed by family members or friends.)

No more sweetheart land deals with campaign contributors. No gifts of IPO shares. No trading of stocks related to committee assignments. No earmarks where the congressman receives a direct benefit. No accepting campaign contributions while Congress is in session. No lobbyists as family members, and no transitioning into a lobbying career after leaving office. No more revolving door, ever.

This call for real reform must transcend political parties. The grass-roots movements of the right and the left should embrace this.

Again ...

1.  Don't look,

2. What are the writer's political position on the "left-right" spectrum

3. Do you basically agree with the person?

Firm





Hillwilliam -> RE: Can You Guess Without Googling? (11/18/2011 12:11:01 PM)

1. I didn't

2. I'd say Right of center but not all the way out on the far wing.

3. I agree as you could probably figure from what Ive written around here.




mnottertail -> RE: Can You Guess Without Googling? (11/18/2011 12:12:16 PM)

1. I assume that is Gov. Schweitzer from Montana.
2. Why would you post it if he wasn't a republican?  Oh, I will guess he is a communist, or socialist, or marxist, how's that?
3.  Basically agree,  he is saying in effect, the universal known tautology.   The whale is undoubtably one of the largest mammals alive today. 




FirmhandKY -> RE: Can You Guess Without Googling? (11/18/2011 12:13:48 PM)

Damn, Ron.  CMail me, and I'll post it, if I can.

Firm




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Can You Guess Without Googling? (11/18/2011 12:18:23 PM)

1. I already know
2. From the quotes it would be difficult to tell, since the comments transcend either party and Congressional corruption crosses the aisle
3. I agree with all of it except the "no lobbying after leaving office". Legal, registered and transparent lobbying is protected speech, representing the interests of persons who do not have the knowledge or access to have their voices heard without someone intimately familiar with the ins and outs of DC. To exclude former officeholders from providing those services is to deny someone an effective form of speech. "Lobbyist" has become a dirty word unfairly, painting too broad a brush of corruption.




Hillwilliam -> RE: Can You Guess Without Googling? (11/18/2011 12:21:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

1. I already know
2. From the quotes it would be difficult to tell, since the comments transcend either party and Congressional corruption crosses the aisle
3. I agree with all of it except the "no lobbying after leaving office". Legal, registered and transparent lobbying is protected speech, representing the interests of persons who do not have the knowledge or access to have their voices heard without someone intimately familiar with the ins and outs of DC. To exclude former officeholders from providing those services is to deny someone an effective form of speech. "Lobbyist" has become a dirty word unfairly, painting too broad a brush of corruption.


What would you say about a waiting period (say 12 or 24 months) before transferring over to the lobbying side? That would be similar to the 'noncompete clause' inherent in a lot of employment contracts.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Can You Guess Without Googling? (11/18/2011 12:34:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

1. I already know
2. From the quotes it would be difficult to tell, since the comments transcend either party and Congressional corruption crosses the aisle
3. I agree with all of it except the "no lobbying after leaving office". Legal, registered and transparent lobbying is protected speech, representing the interests of persons who do not have the knowledge or access to have their voices heard without someone intimately familiar with the ins and outs of DC. To exclude former officeholders from providing those services is to deny someone an effective form of speech. "Lobbyist" has become a dirty word unfairly, painting too broad a brush of corruption.


What would you say about a waiting period (say 12 or 24 months) before transferring over to the lobbying side? That would be similar to the 'noncompete clause' inherent in a lot of employment contracts.



I don't see any point to it. They arent in competition with Congress as a lobbyist, they are (again when legal, registered and transparent) a valid source of information on the concerns/needs of a portion of their constituency. I think movement in the opposite direction, from business to appointed positions of power is a much greater problem. There is far more danger from putting someone with recent ties in business into a decision making position than there is of putting someone in the Government into a lobbying role. We've seen how well the ex-Goldman Sachs crew and how well the Dept of Energy is functioning with those kinds of ties.




Hillwilliam -> RE: Can You Guess Without Googling? (11/18/2011 12:37:30 PM)

Good points. I was just curious. To clarify, I wasn't saying that lobbyists compete with congress, I was just wondering how you felt about a waiting period.




gungadin09 -> RE: Can You Guess Without Googling? (11/18/2011 12:39:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
I would ask that you do not Google the net to find out who said this.  I will give a link to it, later.

What I wish for everyone to guess is ... what are the political leanings of the writer and would you support a person who believes this?

1.  Don't look,

2. What are the writer's political position on the "left-right" spectrum

3. Do you basically agree with the person?


I suspect there's going to be something suprising about the results, some kind of twist. But i would have said: liberal, and yes.

pam




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Can You Guess Without Googling? (11/18/2011 12:43:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
I would ask that you do not Google the net to find out who said this.  I will give a link to it, later.

What I wish for everyone to guess is ... what are the political leanings of the writer and would you support a person who believes this?

1.  Don't look,

2. What are the writer's political position on the "left-right" spectrum

3. Do you basically agree with the person?


I suspect there's going to be something suprising about the results, some kind of twist. But i would have said: liberal, and yes.

pam


I think more interesting than the person who said it will be that most here...right left or center... will identify the speaker with their own leanings (except those who cheat and look).




Zonie63 -> RE: Can You Guess Without Googling? (11/18/2011 12:46:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

1.  Don't look,

2. What are the writer's political position on the "left-right" spectrum

3. Do you basically agree with the person?

Firm




2. It's hard to tell, since this piece looks like an overall criticism of corrupt practices within Washington, which could be a valid criticism for or against either the left or the right. In theory, every ideological faction is against corruption, which makes it all the more curious as to why nothing is done about it. But that's not an ideological "left-right" question, but more a matter of honest vs. dishonest.

3. I agree, but if it's written by a politician, I might doubt the sincerity.




Hillwilliam -> RE: Can You Guess Without Googling? (11/18/2011 12:46:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


I think more interesting than the person who said it will be that most here...right left or center... will identify the speaker with their own leanings (except those who cheat and look).

I think you've got another good point. That would especially be true of those who agree with the speaker. Those who dont agree with the speaker might put him on the other side of the spectrum probably at the end.




FirmhandKY -> RE: Can You Guess Without Googling? (11/18/2011 12:55:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09

I suspect there's going to be something suprising about the results, some kind of twist. But i would have said: liberal, and yes.

Pam,

You can always Google it now that you have responded.  Just don't give it away, please.

Firm




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Can You Guess Without Googling? (11/18/2011 12:55:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


I think more interesting than the person who said it will be that most here...right left or center... will identify the speaker with their own leanings (except those who cheat and look).

I think you've got another good point. That would especially be true of those who agree with the speaker. Those who dont agree with the speaker might put him on the other side of the spectrum probably at the end.


Yes, but I dont think anyone will disagree with the overall positions, just specifics like my objection to banning lobbying after public office.

Well..the cheaters will disagree for the sake of disagreeing, and the all government is ebil crowd will dismiss it all as pointless or lies (see zonie above!)




samboct -> RE: Can You Guess Without Googling? (11/18/2011 12:56:28 PM)

I don't recognize the writer which suggests that it someone on the right- but it's initially hard to disagree with- except...

I like people who quantify things. How many congressman are millionaires before starting out as such? We've certainly seen a lot of people throw a lot of money at elections- such as Meg Whitman and lose. My congressman is Jim Himes, and I'll lay long odds he's probably a millionaire before getting elected. So the author's comment of "men and women of modest means"- doesn't really gybe with what's out there off the top of my pointy head- look at John Kerry, John McCain, the Republican lineup- are any of them worth less than $10M? The on the Democrats side- well, I don't know how much Obama started, with, but Biden can lay claim to coming from the wrong side of the tracks and making good. But I think he may be an exception these days.

Sam




Hillwilliam -> RE: Can You Guess Without Googling? (11/18/2011 12:58:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


I think more interesting than the person who said it will be that most here...right left or center... will identify the speaker with their own leanings (except those who cheat and look).

I think you've got another good point. That would especially be true of those who agree with the speaker. Those who dont agree with the speaker might put him on the other side of the spectrum probably at the end.


Yes, but I dont think anyone will disagree with the overall positions, just specifics like my objection to banning lobbying after public office.

Well..the cheaters will disagree for the sake of disagreeing, and the all government is ebil crowd will dismiss it all as pointless or lies (see zonie above!)

I see what you're saying but I'm not going to say anything because that might give some things away and screw up Firm's thread.




FirmhandKY -> RE: Can You Guess Without Googling? (11/18/2011 12:59:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

I see what you're saying but I'm not going to say anything because that might give some things away and screw up Firm's thread.

If no one gives it away, and we reach a second page, I figured I'd post the link then.

Firm




Hillwilliam -> RE: Can You Guess Without Googling? (11/18/2011 1:01:07 PM)

Let it go longer Firm. More people can play that way. Say post the link tonight.




SternSkipper -> RE: Can You Guess Without Googling? (11/18/2011 1:03:32 PM)

You had to post this the ONE day I voluntarily go read the conservative's favorite webnews to attack.
   I disqualify myself





kalikshama -> RE: Can You Guess Without Googling? (11/18/2011 1:03:35 PM)

Nice speech. How does the "author" do extemporaneously?




Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875