Fred is out!

The very fact that you admitted that what Zhu did was an example of this happening shows you are talking out both sides of your mouth. You say this is what happened and then you say this never happens. Which is it?
Click to expand...

So you think Zhu (Cho) was making max donations of ($2300) via each of their employees...willing or unwilling? Or that I stated he did (was)? Again someone is confused alright.

He was making straw donations. But as yet, no large companies making the maximum donation($2300) via each of their employees...willing or unwilling has been revealed. Hence the call to substantiate your claim.

So, like I said, back up the claim or simply state you were mistaken. And this one too........
Quote:
Went from the original allegation to changing it as being done like charity donations, to cash by willing employees to attempting to put words in my mouth.
Click to expand...

Not true at all...re-read the posts and see if you can figure out where you are wrong.
Click to expand...
 
So you think Zhu (Cho) was making max donations of ($2300) via each of their employees...willing or unwilling? Or that I stated he did (was)?

He was making straw donations. But as yet, no large companies making the maximum donation($2300) via each of their employees...willing or unwilling has been revealed. Hence the call to substantiate your claim.

So, like I said, back up the claim or simply state you were mistaken
Click to expand...
So you are just agruing the trivial nature of the amount of the donations and not the actual practice?

Seems pretty petty but I will point out that at no time did I mention a specific amount in my intial post and when I used the word "maximum" I was answering a question as to how a corporation "could" violate rules in ways that an individual could not.

I then related a similar experience and again did not mention an amount of money in that instance either.

The only time I mentioned an amount was to correct someone else that added an amount to a quote attributed to me when I did not mention an amount at all.

So are you arguing the idea that the original point that corporations find loopholes and exploit them that individuals cannot is invalid? and are you arguing that the method I mentioned does not happen? or are you just wanting to argue trivialities to distract from the true message/point? or maybe some other reason?
 
Sorry to disappoint the anti-Paul people, but he is in it all the way to the convention. He still has money, is debt free and is already working on $4 mil online donations for this quarter. He is here like an embedded tick and he is going to be a lot harder to ignore after most of the "serious" candidates have dropped out.
Click to expand...

bingo
 
Sorry to disappoint the anti-Paul people, but he is in it all the way to the convention. He still has money, is debt free and is already working on $4 mil online donations for this quarter. He is here like an embedded tick and he is going to be a lot harder to ignore after most of the "serious" candidates have dropped out.
Click to expand...
Even if he does stay in to the end how is he in any way a contender?

He has almost no delegates and even when he manages to finish third does it really mean anything when the second place guy has almost 400% more votes?

I am not throwing stones or making fun...I am just curious how people see him as viable when he does not have the votes, the delegates, etc.
 
AAAaahhhh. Changing that allegation. Well I guess that's tactic admission of being mistaken as of course you can't back it up and a guy does have his pride right. The allegation I'm addressing is AGAIN this:
Playboypenguin in post #49 said:
Large companies that make the maximum donation via each of their employees...willing or unwilling.
Click to expand...
And has yet to be substantiated.

Can the hostility, be prepared to back up claims or have the fortitude to admit mistakes. Jumping around from position to position to deflection to hostility to denial isn't proving a now obviously made up allegation.

Look where that kind of stuff has gotten Pat. Can't hardly get taken seriously because of this kind of behavior. I've said this before, and try to take it seriously before you whip out the hostility again, you have enjoyed a good reputation and I have no interest in damaging that, but sophistry, unfounded allegations, and hostility in lieu of admission of a mistake has the great and likely potential to make that good reputation something less.

Discussions about politics can be heated. And challenges are common not rare. Search my post history if you like. I've made numerous admissions of being wrong and apologizing. Many many have/do. It's less damaging to your pride then not doing so is to credibility.

I genuinely respect you PBP. Your a knowledgeable guy with regard to firearms. Disagreeing won't make me respect you less but the nonsense I described above could. And not just me.......
 
Even if he does stay in to the end how is he in any way a contender?
Click to expand...

I don't think he is a contender for the nomination.

However, the longer he is in the spot light and advancing the causes of small government, civil liberties, and non-interventionalism, and the more people that hear that message, then the more likely we are to have a better candidate in 2012.
 
ZeroJunk:

Campaign finance laws and the Ron Paul Blimp

These wacky folks figured they could just accept a bunch of donations and fly a blimp promoting Ron Paul. Free political speech, right?

No, they can't. The campaign finance laws were a major obstacle, so they simply went around them. They aren't taking donations for political speech, they're selling advertising time. Don't you see the HUGE difference? ;)

I think we'd be better off letting them admit what they are doing without all the red tape and arbitrary limits.

Your thoughts?
 
P42, I never said I thought McCain Feingold was good law. But, at the time with election spending growing exponentially there was a growing concern in the country that political offices would be controlled more than ever by whoever could spend the most money, not whoever was best for the office.

I am not going to say that McCain was not trying to help level the playing field. But, the resulting legislation has spawned a new set of problems.
 
But, at the time with election spending growing exponentially there was a growing concern in the country that political offices would be controlled more than ever by whoever could spend the most money, not whoever was best for the office.
Click to expand...

Is that any different now that McCain-Feingold is law?
 
the resulting legislation has spawned a new set of problems
Click to expand...
A phrase to remember. With almost every issue "the resulting legislation has spawned a new set of problems". And often the original problem was the result of legislation. It might help if they actually read and understood the legislation BEFORE they voted on it.
 
If campaign spending is going through the roof, the solution to the problem is not to clamp down and limit political free speech. The solution is bright sunshine, not bureaucrats and laws. If they really wanted to limit the effect of big money they would simply require instantaneous posting of donations in an official website run by the bank holding the campaign's only checking account. Each contributor would be required to provide a brief biography and complete contact information along with the amount given. The reason the bank would be required to control the website is to ensure the moneys are not available until the contributors information is available. No bureaucrats, no lawsuits, no cash contributions, no in-kind contribution but total visibility.

That is what McCain could have supported. Instead he held true to form and sought to limit constitutional freedoms. McCrain-Feingold did just exactly what it was intended to do: shift contribution patterns for the democrats from individual contributors to NGO institutions funded by the politically active wealthy.
 
McCrain-Feingold did just exactly what it was intended to do: shift contribution patterns for the democrats from individual contributors to NGO institutions funded by the politically active wealthy
Click to expand...

It takes a level of clairvoyance that I don't have to know a persons intentions.
 
AAAaahhhh. Changing that allegation. Well I guess that's tactic admission of being mistaken as of course you can't back it up and a guy does have his pride right. The allegation I'm addressing is AGAIN this:
Click to expand...
You really do seem to be missing the subtleties of the conversation.

I gave a possible way a company "could" get around the law and then I and others related similar experiences that support the fact that these practices do happen. I did not deal with dollar amounts in the experience I presented. I was dealing with validation of the process. Since the process does happen the amount is immaterial since it is the practice that is a violation of the intent of the law...not the amount. Do you understand?
Can the hostility, be prepared to back up claims or have the fortitude to admit mistakes.
Click to expand...
The only mistake here (beside your inability to understand what was said) is my thinking you actually were arguing a point and not just arguing.

I need to teach myself that sometimes there is no point in responding to some posts on these boards. Some people are only here to promote a political agenda regardless of the circumstances or facts. I have tried to get myself to where I look at a persons post history before getting too involved and see if they ever actually come here to discuss firearms or just troll the political section and stir the pot.
 
PBP, you started out with "large" corporations (GM,Exxon,Boeing, come to mind) giving the "maximum"( $2300) for "each" of it's employees, which is nonsense.

If you would say you have anecdotal evidence and you personally believe it has happened on some scale I might give you the benefit of the doubt.
 
If you would say you have anecdotal evidence and you personally believe it has happened on some scale I might give you the benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...

I and another person have both related our personal experiences. We did not claim that the maximum amount was given in the cases we cited but we did show that the practice does happen. So to say that you rule it out because you have not seen evidence of the "maximum" amount being given is not logical. That is like saying "A mugger will not stab you." Then after witnessing a mugger stab someone saying "Okay, a mugger might stab you once...but I see no evdience they would stab you twice." Once the law is broken amounts are immaterial.

...and yes, Enron did make maximum donations via their employees. It is public record and one of the charges they managed to dodge. In one of the depositions that was read on NPR an ex-executive very clearly talked about how he and other executives were approached to make donations to george Bush's campaign and then promised that they would receive "bonus" money to reimburse the donations. It is funny how quickly people seem to forget the past.
 
Even if he does stay in to the end how is he in any way a contender?

He has almost no delegates and even when he manages to finish third does it really mean anything when the second place guy has almost 400% more votes?

I am not throwing stones or making fun...I am just curious how people see him as viable when he does not have the votes, the delegates, etc.
Click to expand...

Perfectly valid question Playboy, and I understand you are not trying to stir things up by asking it. Personally, I don't care about Ron Paul's viability or if he ever becomes President. I look at the Ron Paul campaign like that great scene from 'The Blues Brothers' where Jake and Elwood are causing a scene in the fancy restaurant and they threaten to do it again every day unless they get what they want. Ron Paul is a Blues Brother and the fancy restaurant with the snotty patrons is the Republican party. I support the Ron Paul campaign because it is my sincere hope that it will spawn an army of Ron Paul clones that become a nuisance to the Republican party for years until the party decides to fix itself. Fixing itself is easy enough: smaller Federal government, less spending, states rights on social issues (abortion, gay rights, etc.), a strong military with a reluctance to use it - these are all a good start to getting back on track.
 
And yes, Enron did make maximum donations via their employees. It is public record
Click to expand...

That was 2 years before the limitations of McCain Feingold were enacted. So the statement makes no sense.

Actually, it was part of the reason for McCain Feingold.
 
That was 2 years before the limitations of McCain Feingold were enacted. So the statement makes no sense.
Click to expand...
Yes, this was in violation of some tax law in Texas at the time and because Enron did not want to have large donations on record supporting George Bush so they filtered money through their employees. They were divirting money from tax deffered accounts into the Bush campaign via employees.

The practice is still the same. The motivation is just different.

In this case they filtered the money through employees to avoid showing the money they were donating as positive cash flow. If it is just money sitting around, that they can afford to donate, it counts towards positive cash flow and assets...if it goes out as payroll, but still gets where they want it to go, it is beneficial to their bottom line.

Do you really think a new law would have stopped them?

I did not explain that very well...the guy on NPR did a much better job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top