Matthew Posted July 30 Report Share Posted July 30 Just now, User said: It is not a "fact" to say he is owned... Obviously. My assertion is that Thomas and Crow have a patron-client relationship. Being owned is a more general colloquialism as I'm sure you know. Decades of so-called gifts totalling in the millions is a fact, and not just from Crow but from a whole network of elite patrons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted July 30 Report Share Posted July 30 2 minutes ago, Matthew said: Obviously. Obviously not so obviously as you just got done saying: "You always respond to facts with meaningless non-sequetur generalizations." Quote LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted July 30 Report Share Posted July 30 39 minutes ago, Matthew said: You always respond to facts with meaningless non-sequitur generalizations. It's ok to go around and just give your uniformed gut reaction to things like you do. But I think you think you're doing more than that. matthew, your accusations are in fact by definition baseless. You have not provided a law that has been violated, you have not provided a competent authority advising that a law or regulation has been violated, you just make these wild accusations about how somebody has done something wrong and maybe compromised without providing any evidence whatsoever. If you're going to make these claims you need to step it up a little bit more 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted July 31 Report Share Posted July 31 18 hours ago, User said: There is nothing to show it was somehow below board by not reporting it, other than it not being reported. But now that is just circular. The implication of this sort of "logic" is that a Supreme Court Justice is somehow subject to lower ethical standards of professional conduct than the meekest government pencil-pusher, who in many cases would be required to self-disclose gifts as low as $100 to avoid conflicts of interest (or appearances thereof). It's too bad Bob Menendez didn't get your treatment on his bribery scandal. What's a few gold bars and a bunch of money stashed in the walls between longtime friends? 🙄 On 7/30/2024 at 4:11 PM, User said: What decisions was he involved in that involved his friends? He recently helped strike down the Chevron Deference, something that cost his buddy Koch billions over the years and that his network of businesses and non-profits have campaigned against heavily. What a pleasant coincidence their friendship has been. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted July 31 Report Share Posted July 31 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Moonbox said: The implication of this sort of "logic" is that a Supreme Court Justice is somehow subject to lower ethical standards of professional conduct than the meekest government pencil-pusher, who in many cases would be required to self-disclose gifts as low as $100 to avoid conflicts of interest (or appearances thereof). There is no logic here other than my pointing out there was nothing below board, nothing nefarious here, other than a failure to report. If you want to have a discussion about what standards currently exist as compared to others, great. That is a different discussion than your trying to say this was somehow some kind of devious, wrong, illegal, or whatever behavior. 16 minutes ago, Moonbox said: It's too bad Bob Menendez didn't get your treatment on his bribery scandal. What's a few gold bars and a bunch of money stashed in the walls between longtime friends? 🙄 He was literally bribed. He used his office to do things for payment for foreign governments. The fact that you are somehow trying to compare that to Thomas going on a vacation with his friend just shows how completely out of touch you are here with what happened. 16 minutes ago, Moonbox said: He recently helped strike down the Chevron Deference, something that cost his buddy Koch billions over the years and that his network of businesses and non-profits have campaigned against heavily. What a pleasant coincidence their friendship has been. I already explained the silliness of this 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon argument. Edited July 31 by User Quote LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted July 31 Report Share Posted July 31 39 minutes ago, User said: There is no logic here other than my pointing out there was nothing below board, nothing nefarious here, other than a failure to report. There was no logic. You should have stopped there. The conflict of interest is obvious, and the failure to report wasn't an oversight. That's pretty much the definition of below-board. 54 minutes ago, User said: If you want to have a discussion about what standards currently exist as compared to others, great. There's not much of a conversation to have there. Clarence Thomas hilariously fails any professional code of conduct test out there. I've already said it, but bank tellers and data-entry clerks are held to a higher standard than he's held himself. In a lower Court, he'd have been brought up on disciplinary proceedings a long time ago, but the Founding Fathers likely didn't anticipate someone so cartoonishly self-interested and unscrupulous to end up as one of the Supreme Court Justices, and there aren't many mechanisms to deal with that after the fact. 1 Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted August 1 Report Share Posted August 1 2 hours ago, Moonbox said: There was no logic. You should have stopped there. The conflict of interest is obvious, and the failure to report wasn't an oversight. That's pretty much the definition of below-board. If the conflict of interest were so obvious, you would be able to articulate what it was and why. 2 hours ago, Moonbox said: There's not much of a conversation to have there. Clarence Thomas hilariously fails any professional code of conduct test out there. I've already said it, but bank tellers and data-entry clerks are held to a higher standard than he's held himself. In a lower Court, he'd have been brought up on disciplinary proceedings a long time ago, but the Founding Fathers likely didn't anticipate someone so cartoonishly self-interested and unscrupulous to end up as one of the Supreme Court Justices, and there aren't many mechanisms to deal with that after the fact. I don't know what bank tellers you know or data entry folks you know, but the ones I have known and know have no such ethical guidelines that preclude them from going on vacations with their rich friends. You just keep throwing around baseless assertions. Quote LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herbie Posted August 1 Report Share Posted August 1 So DO tell us exactly what's wrong with any of Biden's proposals and why. If you can. Which I highly doubt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reg Volk Posted August 1 Report Share Posted August 1 4 hours ago, Moonbox said: Clarence Thomas hilariously fails any professional code of conduct test out there. 1 Quote “It doesn’t matter whether you’re black or brown or white or whatever the hell color you are — it doesn’t matter. We are all Americans, and we are going to pull together as Americans!” - Donald J. Trump, soon to be president-elect 2024. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted August 2 Report Share Posted August 2 On 7/31/2024 at 9:02 PM, User said: If the conflict of interest were so obvious, you would be able to articulate what it was and why. I'm not sure you even understand what conflict of interest really means in the first place. On 7/31/2024 at 9:02 PM, User said: I don't know what bank tellers you know or data entry folks you know, but the ones I have known and know have no such ethical guidelines that preclude them from going on vacations with their rich friends. It's hard to understate how disingenuous you're being here. Characterizing Clarence Thomas' influence peddling as "going on vacation with rich friends" is comedy to begin with, but it also ignores the hundreds of thousands (at least) he's received in forgiven loans, free private school tuition for family members and buying his mom's house and letting her live there rent-free. As for ethical guidelines, you're right. Nobody isn't allowed to go on vacation with rich friends. It's just too bad nobody said that was the problem. The problem arises when your professional decisions affect the livelihoods and well-being of those "rich friends", and they're showering you with their largesse. Your worthless dissembling might work on fellow idealogues but "6 degrees of bacon" is a pretty goofy thing to say when you have Koch-employed lawyers arguing cases in front of a Supreme Court Judge who's been enjoying Charles Koch largesse for decades. 🙄 1 Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted August 2 Report Share Posted August 2 14 minutes ago, Moonbox said: I'm not sure you even understand what conflict of interest really means in the first place. Sigh... this is the dumb game you guys play. You make the baseless assertions and then spend days and who knows how many posts deflecting, obfuscating, and being obtuse. Anything other than actually defend your assertions, provide any kind of good argument, examples, facts to back them up. Why? Because you can't. It is just a cheap political game to try to attack the SCOTUS because *gasp* oh no, some court cases are not going the way you hoped they would. 19 minutes ago, Moonbox said: The problem arises when your professional decisions affect the livelihoods and well-being of those "rich friends", and they're showering you with their largesse. The SCOTUS routinely reviews cases of significance that have impact on the livelihoods of people across the board. Rich friends, regular friends, family... etc... The point is are they directly impacted, do they have a direct stake here. Otherwise, the SCOTUS could never rule on anything like abortion... because they all have moms, sisters, wives, daughters... OMG, they are all impacted by that ruling, so no one can ever rule on such a case. 26 minutes ago, Moonbox said: Your worthless dissembling might work on fellow idealogues but "6 degrees of bacon" is a pretty goofy thing to say when you have Koch-employed lawyers arguing cases in front of a Supreme Court Judge who's been enjoying Charles Koch largesse for decades. 🙄 No, 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon is a perfect way to describe the game you are playing here. Now you are talking about Charles Koch? What did he give to anyone on the court where he had a case he was directly involved in before the court? You do realize that Lawyers have many clients? What Lawyers are you talking about specifically and what specifically is their connection to Charles Koch and what specifically did Charles Koch have before the Courts that there is some impropriety going on here... Come on man, enough of these games. Lets see the details. Quote LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.