TradeTheBeal! Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 2 minutes ago, tshile said: Yeah i'd prefer they not funnel money to their buddies. To you it's only a billion dollars. We're just on two totally different wave lengths about what is and isn't acceptable for the government to do. I never said "only a billion" dollars. I pointed out that the "nearly a billion" figure that is wholly unsubstantiated within the op-ed is significantly less than the player payroll of the Golden State Warriors over the next three seasons. That's all...no need to put words in my mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted July 17, 2017 Author Share Posted July 17, 2017 1 hour ago, BornaSkinsFan83 said: Daaamn I thought nonniey was dead. Seriously. Ain't seen him in any of the other political threads. Glad you're alive buddy! Don't like Trump, but dislike the "resistance" even more - so not much to talk about. This forum is like watching The View everyday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 13 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said: I never said "only a billion" dollars. I pointed out that the "nearly a billion" figure that is wholly unsubstantiated within the op-ed is significantly less than the player payroll of the Golden State Warriors over the next three seasons. That's all...no need to put words in my mouth. It was exactly what you were saying. Just like another poster decided that because Trump is terrible, that somehow matters. I don't even know that anything wrong was done here, maybe that money went to the right people and for a good reason. I was just commenting on the initial responses, which seem par for the course in politics these days. "Its only" "But he did it" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted July 17, 2017 Author Share Posted July 17, 2017 14 minutes ago, tshile said: It was exactly what you were saying. Just like another poster decided that because Trump is terrible, that somehow matters. I don't even know that anything wrong was done here, maybe that money went to the right people and for a good reason. I was just commenting on the initial responses, which seem par for the course in politics these days. "Its only" "But he did it" Oh I think what was done was corrupt (majorly corrupt at that) but not all corrupt practices are illegal and this apparently falls into that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinny21 Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 But why do you think it was majorly corrupt? What are your thought on the actual premise - that excess money is given to groups that help battle the injustices that led to the restitution payments? What I am still uncertain about is: 1) is it only excess money, and 2) how exactly is excess determined. If it's purely the remainder of the difference between what was sought vs rewarded (if that's how this all works, lol), than ok, that's easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 2 hours ago, tshile said: It was exactly what you were saying. Just like another poster decided that because Trump is terrible, that somehow matters. I don't even know that anything wrong was done here, maybe that money went to the right people and for a good reason. I was just commenting on the initial responses, which seem par for the course in politics these days. "Its only" "But he did it" Quit bellyaching. Speak truth to power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 2 hours ago, skinny21 said: But why do you think it was majorly corrupt? What are your thought on the actual premise - that excess money is given to groups that help battle the injustices that led to the restitution payments? What I am still uncertain about is: 1) is it only excess money, and 2) how exactly is excess determined. If it's purely the remainder of the difference between what was sought vs rewarded (if that's how this all works, lol), than ok, that's easy. Why not apply excess funds to the debt instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busch1724 Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 twa...I was thinking the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 I'm kind of sad about it. The new name is amazingly boring and it feels a little like when the Bullets became the Wizards. They went from something with a little edge to it, to bland city, though admittedly no one I knew actually called them "La Raza." Everyone referred to them as "NCLR" which is even worse than Unidos US. It's not hard to understand this move by them. First of all, Hispanic isn't a race. The term "La Raza" has a history but few people know about "La Raza Cósmica" and so they just translated it directly and ended up with "the race." The new name better reflects to the diversity of the Hispanic community to everyone. The other issue was that the name had a lot of negative baggage, unearned in my opinion. American's were too often under the mistaken impression that "la Raza" was far more exciting (and sinister) than the relatively run of the mill non-profit advocacy group that it is. I consider this the medias doing. Every time I read articles about them, the media made them out to be a extremist group. Making jokes about this wild reputation failing to match the reality got mixed reactions at their events. As for their receiving boat loads of money from the government? I'm fine with it in this specific instance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinny21 Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 2 hours ago, twa said: Why not apply excess funds to the debt instead? I might be fine with that I suppose. The only negative I can come up with offhand is that it could lead to the government taking advantage (pushing the DOJ for harsher penalties to improve the debt outlook). With that said, if the argument is that the government was already taking advantage, then that's kind of a moot point. Of course, I'm not sure I agree that giving support to causes that fight for the little guys is a bad thing... I mean, it's not exactly the liberals fault that the other side calls that cronyism. Random example, but how would you feel if women suing Roger Ailes for harassment (might be tough now) asked for 5 million dollars, they win and the judge awards 10... and then instructs that the excess money go toward programs that seek to educate high schoolers about sexual harassment. Is that a bad thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 9 minutes ago, skinny21 said: Random example, but how would you feel if women suing Roger Ailes for harassment (might be tough now) asked for 5 million dollars, they win and the judge awards 10... and then instructs that the excess money go toward programs that seek to educate high schoolers about sexual harassment. Is that a bad thing? there is a major difference between a judge doing so and the DOJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinny21 Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 Just now, twa said: there is a major difference between a judge doing so and the DOJ In what way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 1 minute ago, skinny21 said: In what way? a judge answers to a higher court and is entrusted with the power, the DOJ is not a federal disbursement group. you invite corruption and political influence.(which is Congress's role ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 16 hours ago, Elessar78 said: to the sanctimonious posters, you sure that the Trumps, Bushes, and Reagans are clean of any sort of this stuff? When you funnel money in a quasi-legal manner to non-profits and brown people it's cronyism. If you funnel money in a quasi-legal manner to corporations headed up by white guys, you're just "pro-business". BAM!!! Holy crap that door slammed right on his nose!! He and @twawill of course NEVER admit it, but you totally slammed the door on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 9 hours ago, twa said: a judge answers to a higher court and is entrusted with the power, the DOJ is not a federal disbursement group. you invite corruption and political influence.(which is Congress's role ) These settlements are approved by judges though. If judges were doing the same you would be calling it judicial activism. I think your argument is disingenuous. If you want the practice to stop in total I would respect that argument far more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 2 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said: These settlements are approved by judges though. If judges were doing the same you would be calling it judicial activism. I think your argument is disingenuous. If you want the practice to stop in total I would respect that argument far more. They're just pissed that minority advocacy groups were helped when what they wanted was for the GOPers on the Hill to block that funding and send it to their churches and private schools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 20 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said: These settlements are approved by judges though. If judges were doing the same you would be calling it judicial activism. I think your argument is disingenuous. If you want the practice to stop in total I would respect that argument far more. you are mistaken Quote Third-party settlements are often reached in the course of non-prosecution or deferred prosecution agreements (N/DPA). The arrangement essentially functions as a plea bargain — generally a defendant will agree to fulfill certain requirements in order to avoid prosecution. http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/07/sessions-ends-settlement-pay-outs-to-special-interests/ Where government is concerned, federal law strictly circumscribes the sanctions prosecutors can assess post-conviction. Therefore, N/DPA’s and third-party settlements give government maximum flexibility in determining penalties, while corporations elude the trouble of indictments — and all absent judicial supervision Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 Quote http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-justice-department-records-forcing-corporations-fund-leftist-groups/ Findings spearheaded by the House Judiciary Committee point to a process shrouded in secrecy whereby monies were distributed to a labyrinth of nonprofit organizations involved with grass-roots activism. “Advocates for big government and progressive power are using the Justice Department to extort money from corporations,” Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton told Fox News. “It’s a shakedown. It’s corrupt, pure and simple.” … When big banks are sued by the government for discrimination or mortgage abuse, they can settle the cases by donating to third-party non-victims. The settlements do not specify how these third-party groups could use the windfall. Opponents of the Justice Department program have argued that settlements from corporations rightly belonged to taxpayers and should have gone to the Treasury Department. The Justice Department countered that it could bypass Treasury and dispense the money to select non-profit organizations favored by the Obama administration because the corporations’ “donations” are voluntary. They must have redefined voluntary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 35 minutes ago, twa said: They must have redefined voluntary You are constantly redefining terms I figured you'd be good with it. Besides, it is a voluntarily contribution, they could always face prosecution. It's their choice. I think it's funny that you aren't saying that these companies are innocent. You just want the government to get the money so it can fund YOUR interest groups. No worries, Sessions and Devos will make sure that the government funds the flat earth society and climate denying groups you want funded, oh and rich kids will be able to afford their new tennis rackets with the money mom and dad save from funding public schools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 Why am I not surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 This is hilarious. Getting all worked up by some op-ed piece by someone with an ax to grind that doesn't constitute anything of substance. Yet, a couple of people in here eating it up exactly as the author wants you to. If nothing else clued you in to the extreme bias, you should have recognized it once they saying Jeff Sessions was a person of utmost character. Try providing facts as to where all the money goes and what the process actually is before passing judgement. For example, where did the other $998 million go? Which organizations received money and why did they actually receive money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 1 minute ago, Hersh said: Try providing facts as to where all the money goes and what the process actually is before passing judgement. For example, where did the other $998 million go? Which organizations received money and why did they actually receive money? If you read my last link they are being sued because they refuse to provide those records. If they only skim a few percent it is hunky dorey with you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 7 minutes ago, twa said: If you read my last link they are being sued because they refuse to provide those records. If they only skim a few percent it is hunky dorey with you? If you provide facts that it was skimming, then it's worthy of a conversation. Your last link was another biased view of what is taking place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 8 minutes ago, Hersh said: If you provide facts that it was skimming, then it's worthy of a conversation. Your last link was another biased view of what is taking place. The fact is groups outside the parties involved are getting money...and the practice is encouraged with a 2 to 1 deduction from the fine theatened. Why should outside parties benefit w/o oversight in your view? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 Just now, twa said: The fact is groups outside the parties involved are getting money...and the practice is encouraged with a 2 to 1 deduction from the fine theatened. Why should outside parties benefit w/o oversight in your view? You mean oversight by Congress? or oversight after money is distributed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.