The American form of Government

Originally Posted by Flint

...

A useful definition for bullshit is: that which cannot be backed up with logical reasoning and/or that which has only been backed up with specious reasoning (i.e. no attempt has been made to employee logical reasoning). In the above quoted exchange, where do you see the more critical thinking skills being utilized?

You have no argument from me on the quotes you cited.

I simply cited, what IMO, was the most recent example of bullshit.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by Flint

...

A useful definition for bullshit is: that which cannot be backed up with logical reasoning and/or that which has only been backed up with specious reasoning

Or it could be defined as "making up new definitions as the primary support for your argument"...ie, the utter bullshit definition of the left vs right dichotomy in the video or, you know, your post that I am quoting.

[Flint]

Douche.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by Flint

Douche.

Hit a nerve, did I?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by TGRR

Or it could be defined as "making up new definitions as the primary support for your argument"...ie, the utter bullshit definition of the left vs right dichotomy in the video or, you know, your post that I am quoting.

He's pointing out what you want to call "left" and "right" have the same result of total government control. Making a new chart from total control on one side and no government control makes more sense to me. He could have reversed it and put total control on the right side, and still make his point, but you seem to be so hung up on the "left" & "right" labels you're missing his point.

Anyway, it was not primary support for his explanation(not argument) of the difference between a Democracy and a Republic. They would fall in between the extremes no matter what you put on the "right/left"

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

He's pointing out what you want to call "left" and "right" have the same result of total government control. Making a new chart from total control on one side and no government control makes more sense to me.

A guy named Jerry Pournelle did that, back in the 60s.

One axis of a cartesian plane was state control. Far left (on the graph) was no control or regulation at all, far right was utter control of every facet of life.

The vertical axis was economic. The lower end was no taxation or public services whatsoever, and the upper end was stifling taxation at every income level.

This allows you to plot yourself on the graph, and allows differentation between Stalin and Jefferson (on the "left"), and between Hitler and William Howard Taft (on the "right").

[lookout123]

you call something shit without delving into the issue then go to great lengths explaining why you're too superior to discuss it, that is why you appear to be thrashing around.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by lookout123

you call something shit without delving into the issue then go to great lengths explaining why you're too superior to discuss it, that is why you appear to be thrashing around.

Where did I say I was too superior to discuss it? Be specific, please.

[fomentor]

i saw the crap definition of right/left at the beginning and being a glutton for punishment i kept watching to the end..




it never got any better


i have no reputation on this forum for insightful political discourse so ignore my review and go ahead and watch it..


i recommend setting your BS detector on high


but you don't have to follow that recommendation either...

[Shawnee123]

[TheMercenary]

And here we have a truely American Form of American Government, the demoncratic double standard. Where is the outcry. NPR did a great show on this subject yesterday.

Firm with Murtha Ties Got Earmarks From Nearly One-Fourth of House

By Jonathan Allen and Alex Knott, CQ Staff
More than 100 House members secured earmarks in a major spending bill for clients of a single lobbying firm — The PMA Group — known for its close ties to John P. Murtha , the congressman in charge of Pentagon appropriations.

“It shows you how good they were,” said Keith Ashdown, chief investigator at the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. “The sheer coordination of that would take an army to finish.”

PMA’s offices have been raided, and the firm closed its political action committee last week amid reports that the FBI is investigating possibly illegal campaign contributions to Murtha and other lawmakers.

No matter what the outcome of the federal investigation, PMA’s earmark success illustrates how a well-connected lobbying firm operates on Capitol Hill. And earmark accountability rules imposed by the Democrats in 2007 make it possible to see how extensively PMA worked the Hill for its clients.

In the spending bill managed by Murtha, the fiscal 2008 Defense appropriation, 104 House members got earmarks for projects sought by PMA clients, according to Congressional Quarterly’s analysis of a database constructed by Ashdown’s group.

See CQ's list of House members who secured earmarks for clients of The PMA Group in the fiscal 2008 defense appropriations law.

Those House members, plus a handful of senators, combined to route nearly $300 million in public money to clients of PMA through that one law (PL 110-116).

And when the lawmakers were in need — as they all are to finance their campaigns — PMA came through for them.

According to CQ MoneyLine, the same House members who took responsibility for PMA’s earmarks in that spending bill have, since 2001, accepted a cumulative $1,815,138 in campaign contributions from PMA’s political action committee and employees of the firm.

Friends in High Places
PMA’s founder, Paul Magliocchetti, is a former House Appropriations Committee aide who has a long-running relationship with Murtha, D-Pa., the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

Murtha, who used to boast that his middle initial stands for “power,” carved out $38.1 million for PMA clients in the fiscal 2008 defense spending law, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Indiana Rep. Peter J. Visclosky , who serves on Murtha’s subcommittee and additionally is chairman of the subcommittee that allocates money for the Pentagon’s nuclear programs, earmarked $23.8 million for PMA clients in the fiscal 2008 defense spending bill.

His former chief of staff, Richard Kaelin, lobbies for PMA, as does Melissa Koloszar, a former top aide to defense appropriator James P. Moran , D-Va.

Moran sponsored $10.8 million for PMA clients, and Rep. Norm Dicks , D-Wash., another member of the subcommittee, sponsored $12.1 million.

Spokesmen for Murtha and Visclosky did not respond to requests for comment.

Spending Freely
Of the 104 lawmakers who lent their names to earmark requests for PMA clients in the fiscal 2008 Pentagon spending law, 91 have, since 2001, received campaign money linked to PMA, either from its political action committee or its employees. The group is pretty evenly divided — 54 Democrats, 50 Republicans.

Overall, since 2001, PMA’s PAC and its employees together have poured $3.3 million into the coffers of congressional campaign committees and so-called leadership political action committees that support the ambitions of lawmakers who want to raise their profile.

In reviewing the millions of dollars of campaign contributions made by PMA or its employees, CQ excluded from its totals money from individuals whose employment by PMA could not be confirmed. Those unverifiable donations added up to less than $50,000.

Visclosky raked in $219,000 in campaign donations from PMA and its employees since 2001. That’s more money than he spent in three of his 13 elections.

Murtha’s political committees have collected $143,600 in contributions from PMA’s employees and its political action committee during the same period.

Moran ranks third, having taken $125,250 in PMA contributions since 2001.

Dicks is fourth at $91,600.

Rep. John B. Larson , the Democratic Caucus chairman, can attribute $37,850 worth of campaign money to PMA sources.

PMA was less generous with the campaign committees of other legislative leaders.

Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer , D-Md., got $16,000 in PMA-connected contributions during that time; House Speaker Nancy Pelosi received $4,500; and Majority Whip James E. Clyburn of South Carolina received $3,000.

Of the Democratic leaders, only Pelosi could be documented as having secured an earmark for a PMA client in the first Democratic-written Defense spending bill: $2 million for SA Photonics’ Satellite Coherent Optical Receiver.

Of the top 20 House recipients of PMA money since 2001, only Larson did not guide any earmarks to PMA clients in the fiscal 2008 Pentagon spending bill.

PMA and its employees have not given campaign money to the top three House Republican leaders, John A. Boehner of Ohio, Eric Cantor of Virginia and Mike Pence of Indiana.

It is clear from PMA’s earmark success, though, that it didn’t need the intervention of top leaders.

And though some of its political money went to Senate campaigns, PMA’s earmark success was clearly the result of efforts in the House, and particularly its efforts with the clutch of Democratic defense appropriators closest to Murtha.

“By and large their strength is nobody was better or more capable of moving the House Defense Subcommittee when it came to these matters,” Ashdown said.

No Overhead?
Curiously, in the last four election cycles, PMA’s political action committee reported expenses of only $18, according to federal campaign finance reports compiled by CQ MoneyLine.

It reported no payroll costs.

The $18 was for re-ordering checks and another bank fee.

Now that PMA has been the focus of news reports, several lawmakers have said they’ll give away some of their campaign money.

“My campaign has informed me that the PMA Group has made contributions to my re-election committee in past years. I have directed that all contributions ever received from the PMA Group be returned to them,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren , D-Calif., chairwoman of the House ethics committee. “I do so without making any comment to the veracity of the allegations against PMA Group.”

Aides to Visclosky and Sen. Bill Nelson , D-Fla., also have told reporters that a portion of campaign money would be returned.

Murtha’s Corner
The inventory of PMA’s contributions and earmark benefactors includes a number of House members who have clout by association, because they are Murtha’s friends or his proteges in the Pennsylvania delegation — a group that congregates along the southeast edge of the House chamber in what’s been known for years as Murtha’s corner.

Among the top 20 recipients of PMA campaign dollars since 2001 are Pennsylvania Democrats Mike Doyle ($69,400), Tim Holden ($57,275), Paul Kanjorski ($37,150) and Chris Carney ($38,500) — even though Carney was first elected in 2006.

In the PMA donation top 30 are Pennsylvania Reps. Patrick J. Murphy ($29,250), Allyson Y. Schwartz ($25,000) and Jason Altmire ($24,500). Schwartz was first elected in 2004, and Altmire and Murphy first won their seats in 2006.

Those Pennsylvanians combined for $17.3 million in PMA earmarks in the single fiscal 2008 bill shepherded by Murtha.

Rep. Michael E. Capuano , who is often only partially visible in the House chamber because he stands behind Murtha’s back row with his arms over the railing, has taken $54,000 in campaign contributions from PMA sources in the last eight years.

In the fiscal 2008 bill, he requested a successful $2 million earmark for Parametric Technology Corporation, a PMA-represented information systems company with offices near Capuano’s Boston-based district and in Murtha’s district in western Pennsylvania.

Capuano also secured $800,000 in that bill for another one of the lobbying firm’s clients.

The list of lawmakers who have guided money to PMA clients also includes Republicans, most prominently Reps. C.W. “Bill” Young of Florida and Jerry Lewis of California.

Young, the top Republican on Murtha’s subcommittee, won $20.4 million in earmarks for PMA clients, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense. Lewis, the top Republican on the full Appropriations Committee, secured $8 million.

PMA’s customers, of course, turned the tax dollars they received into products and services for the government and profits for their companies.

As a cost of getting that business, they paid PMA nearly $16.4 million in 2007, according to congressional disclosure reports.

No lobbying firm specializing in Defense clients took in more money that year.

Until recently, PMA had 34 lobbyists on payroll, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

By comparison, the firm Holland and Knight, which made $15,000 more than PMA on lobbying in 2007, has 73 lobbyists and Patton Boggs, which took in more than $43 million in 2007, has 151 lobbyists, according to CRP.

It’s capitalism, Capitol Hill style.

“There has been a system put in place in this town and they are playing by the system,” a well-connected Republican lobbyist said of PMA. “They’re good at it, and the bottom line on good here is generating revenues.”

First posted Feb. 19, 2009 5:52 a.m.

Correction
Corrects to say House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md., got $16,000 in PMA-connected contributions since 2001.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cf...s-000003055541

[TheMercenary]

The NPR story:

Morning Edition, February 19, 2009 · One of Washington's most successful lobbying firms is on the verge of closing down. In November, FBI agents seized documents from the Northern Virginia offices of The PMA Group. There are questions regarding campaign contributions and the firm's ties to House Democrats such as John Murtha of Pennsylvania.

The PMA Group was founded 20 years ago by Paul Magliocchetti, who was a longtime aide to Murtha. It has specialized in lobbying the House Appropriations Committee, for which Murtha heads the subcommittee on defense. PMA also has ties to several other committee Democrats.

Over the past 10 years, the firm made nearly $114 million in lobbying fees, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And its clients have done very well.

In fiscal 2008, clients got a total of 154 earmarks, or special spending provisions that appropriators wrote just for them.

But at the end of last year, two things happened. The firm's principals couldn't agree over financial terms as Magliocchetti moved toward retirement. PMA's lobbyists began heading for the exit, and FBI agents raided the office and carted off boxes of documents.

Now PMA is all but defunct, and some lawmakers are divesting themselves of contributions from PMA donors.

The case delivers a jarring blow to congressional Democrats, who won control of Capitol Hill in 2006 with a promise to "drain the swamp."

"This looks like the same old politics that the Republicans were playing, where they're playing pay-to-play — you give us a donation, we'll give you an earmark," says Keith Ashdown, who tracks legislative earmarks at the watchdog group Taxpayers For Common Sense.

Murtha has made a career of using earmarks to bring home jobs to his district in southwestern Pennsylvania, where many defense contractors have facilities. And his campaign war chest is top-heavy with contributions from PMA clients.

"Money sloshes around Washington. I think we all know that," Ashdown says. "What we have learned is that 14 House Democrats — PMA was their No. 1 contributor."

The company itself can't give donations. The money came from PMA's 35 employees and from its political action committee.

Among the PMA donors were two of the company's board members, who are friends of Magliocchetti from Florida, where he has a beach condo. In campaign reports, contributions from the two Floridians often appear to be coordinated — same day, same dollar amount, same recipient.

That could suggest PMA was making the contributions in their names, which would be illegal.

Jim Moran, a Democrat from Northern Virginia, wrote eight earmarks for PMA clients in the 2008 budget. Moran's office says he's closely following the situation but won't act "until there's clear evidence something improper occurred."

Another big beneficiary of PMA contributions is Pennsylvania Democrat Christopher Carney, a protege of Murtha's. His communications director says that "if the authorities find any donation to be improper, we will immediately give that contribution to charity."

House Ethics Committee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren received $7,000 over the past decade from The PMA Group's PAC. The California Democrat has issued a statement saying that she is returning the money, but "without making any comment to the veracity of the allegations against PMA Group."

Murtha's office didn't respond to phone and e-mail messages Wednesday.

At the University of Maryland, professor Paul Herrnson has examined the interaction of lobbying and campaign money. He says many lobbyists will come to one conclusion: It pays to give.

"After all, if I am seen by a member of Congress who's in a powerful position as a member of their re-election team, they also might be more likely to consider me a member of their policy team," Herrnson says.

The PMA probe comes on the heels of a separate federal investigation in Murtha's home district.

Last month, agents from the FBI, the IRS and the Pentagon's inspector general raided the properties of Kuchera Industries, another recipient of earmarks from Murtha.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=100850606

[DanaC]

Merc, I think we should change your name to Cassandra.

[Shawnee123]

[classicman]

Why do you say that Dana? This post seems to have some merit to it.

Redux? no thoughts or opinions on that article?