Clarence Thomas ethics violation?

[Bonestorm]

Yeah like last years vote that not just corporations but UNIONS too are allowed first amendment rights...yeah that. Hummmm does Justice Thomas's wife work for a union???

And BTW dork-EVERYONE KNEW that Justice Thomas's wife worked at Heritage foundation...it was not secret.

Everyone but Clarence Thomas, apparently.

 

[Rune]

Yeah like last years vote that not just corporations but UNIONS too are allowed first amendment rights...yeah that. Hummmm does Justice Thomas's wife work for a union???

And BTW dork-EVERYONE KNEW that Justice Thomas's wife worked at Heritage foundation...it was not secret.

You would have a point IF unions had the capitol at hand that corperations do, clearly the advantage went to the very wealthy as usual.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

You would have a point IF unions had the capitol at hand that corperations do, clearly the advantage went to the very wealthy as usual.

this is truly an ignorant statement, not only do the large unions have a large sum of wealth, they have strong control over voters, in that, they can swing a huge portion of a voting block either through intimidation or simply propaganda

unions are on equal footing, if not a stronger footing, when it comes to the power to effect an election

its absurd to deny that

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

dune....

read up on AFL–CIO

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFL%E2%80%93CIO"]AFL–CIO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:AFL-CIO.png" class="image"><img alt="AFL-CIO.png" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/90/AFL-CIO.png/175px-AFL-CIO.png"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/9/90/AFL-CIO.png/175px-AFL-CIO.png[/ame]

11 million members, are you really going to argue they are powerless compared to a corp?

 

[Bonestorm]

this is truly an ignorant statement, not only do the large unions have a large sum of wealth, they have strong control over voters, in that, they can swing a huge portion of a voting block either through intimidation or simply propaganda

unions are on equal footing, if not a stronger footing, when it comes to the power to effect an election

its absurd to deny that

This is probably the funniest shit I've read in a long while.

 

[Rune]

this is truly an ignorant statement, not only do the large unions have a large sum of wealth, they have strong control over voters, in that, they can swing a huge portion of a voting block either through intimidation or simply propaganda

unions are on equal footing, if not a stronger footing, when it comes to the power to effect an election

its absurd to deny that

It is absurd to propose that unions have even a small percentage of the capitol that multinational corperations have. That is truly ignorant.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

It is absurd to propose that unions have even a small percentage of the capitol that multinational corperations have. That is truly ignorant.

oh, so now its just multinational corporations...nice goal post move

so capital alone matters? nothing else? that is ignorant

tell me, why then did meg whitman, who spent $150 MILLION dollars on her campaign lose to brown who spent a 1/10 of that

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

This is probably the funniest shit I've read in a long while.

like i said, you have no sense of humor nigel

 

[Canceled2]

this is truly an ignorant statement, not only do the large unions have a large sum of wealth, they have strong control over voters, in that, they can swing a huge portion of a voting block either through intimidation or simply propaganda

unions are on equal footing, if not a stronger footing, when it comes to the power to effect an election

its absurd to deny that

The ignorance displayed by libs is merely due to the fact they ONLY learn to espouse leftist talking point drivel.

Here is how powerful just 1 union was in the 2008 presdidential election.

Under former Purple Army Chief Andy Stern, the union’s liabilities skyrocketedfrom $7.6 million to nearly $121 million. Stern burned through $61 millionto put Barack Obama and the Democratic ruling majority in place. And before abruptly stepping down in April, he installed a cadre of labor management stooges embroiled in financial scandals across the country.


Some union stats from 2008
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

 

[Canceled2]

oh, so now its just multinational corporations...nice goal post move

so capital alone matters? nothing else? that is ignorant

tell me, why then did meg whitman, who spent $150 MILLION dollars on her campaign lose to brown who spent a 1/10 of that

And what about multi-national unions???

 

[Canceled2]

You would have a point IF unions had the capitol at hand that corperations do, clearly the advantage went to the very wealthy as usual.

Ignorance is bliss for you isn't?

 

[Rune]

oh, so now its just multinational corporations...nice goal post move

so capital alone matters? nothing else? that is ignorant

tell me, why then did meg whitman, who spent $150 MILLION dollars on her campaign lose to brown who spent a 1/10 of that

First, I did not move the goal, you know as well as I that multinational corps can now influence U.S. elections.

Second, even though it is entirely irelevant to this discusian, Meg lost to a former Gov, in a state that is pretty liberal. Maybe the state felt it needed an experienced leader, rather than a wealthy executive at the helm. Sounds like they made a healthy choice.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

OTE=Dune;763275]First, I did not move the goal, you know as well as I that multinational corps can now influence U.S. elections.

i disagree and i will show you your words that form the basis of my claim:

You would have a point IF unions had the capitol at hand that corperations do, clearly the advantage went to the very wealthy as usual.

^ here it is just corporations

It is absurd to propose that unions have even a small percentage of the capitol that multinational corperations have. That is truly ignorant.

^ then you change it to multinational (and btw, maybe a typo, but its twice now - its corpOrations)

Second, even though it is entirely irelevant to this discusian, Meg lost to a former Gov, in a state that is pretty liberal. Maybe the state felt it needed an experienced leader, rather than a wealthy executive at the helm. Sounds like they made a healthy choice.

it is actually entirely relevant as you are claiming capital alone matters. and even you agree in your above statement, that capital alone does not matter.

obama had a war chest of over half a billion dollars...my hunch is...that you were not bothered that mccain was capped at 75 million...so mccain had (iirc) a half a billion dollars less than obama to spend on a campaign....yet you're concerned that corps have more capital than unions, yet not concerned that obama had half a BILLION dollars more than mccain

why is that?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

And what about multi-national unions???

are there really such unions?

 

[Rune]

Ignorance is bliss for you isn't?

Now there is a fact filled response.

 

[Rune]

Not a typo, I am a poor speller. That does not affect my ability to think though.

Like I said before, and you ignored, multinational is implied, since they now have the right to influence elections.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Not a typo, I am a poor speller. That does not affect my ability to think though.

Like I said before, and you ignored, multinational is implied, since they now have the right to influence elections.

you sound like our resident lawyer jarod with that spelling defense

i ignored nothing and addressed your point, you however, completely ignored this:

obama had a war chest of over half a billion dollars...my hunch is...that you were not bothered that mccain was capped at 75 million...so mccain had (iirc) a half a billion dollars less than obama to spend on a campaign....yet you're concerned that corps have more capital than unions, yet not concerned that obama had half a BILLION dollars more than mccain

why is that?

 

[Rune]

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?id=n00006424

O.K., the numbers are somewhat in the range you quoted, yet the chart shows he spent close to 300 million.

I am pretty sure, and think even a con such as yourself would agree, that Obama won for reasons other than spending. Reasons such as; Palin (sarin) Mccains treason in Vietnam, Mccains involvement in the Keating scandal, the fact that NO republican could have possibly won in '08, etc. Of course I was not bothered by Mccains, stupid voluntary choice, it helped ensure he wouldn't make other stupid choices as president.

So, you have picked two contests as proof, yet both were almost predetermined before they began. Hardly evidence that spending vast sums of cash cannot influence an election.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?id=n00006424

O.K., the numbers are somewhat in the range you quoted, yet the chart shows he spent close to 300 million.

I am pretty sure, and think even a con such as yourself would agree, that Obama won for reasons other than spending. Reasons such as; Palin (sarin) Mccains treason in Vietnam, Mccains involvement in the Keating scandal, the fact that NO republican could have possibly won in '08, etc. Of course I was not bothered by Mccains, stupid voluntary choice, it helped ensure he wouldn't make other stupid choices as president.

So, you have picked two contests as proof, yet both were almost predetermined before they began. Hardly evidence that spending vast sums of cash cannot influence an election.

actually, if you recall my earlier statement about meg whitman losing to brown, i said capital alone does not influence elections.

basically, you and agree, but you're still stuck on thinking that corps have an advantage due to capital.....

 

[Damocles]

i want to see the form and rules for a scotus justice, if he is required to disclose the income regardless of whether he believes it is a potential conflict, then not disclosing is dishonest....

don't you think?

Yes. It would be.