Discussion on:

Would you be a whistleblower?

Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

In my life's experience, the whisleblower always comes out worse than the one that they blow the whisle on.

That's because most systems, organizations including the government are prone to want to cover up a problem and keep it quiet and a whisleblower is a problem they'd wish would go away. They never want their dirty laundry aired in public or by an outside authority.

So, to blow the whistle means it must be important.

All of us as workers have an obligation to the mission no matter what the organization or company. If someone is doing something to hurt the mission/company and in a significant way, then it must be reported knowing that you'll pay a price for doing it.

Not everyone is willing to make that sacrafice and sometimes loyalty to the person more than the mission controls their choices.

However, most whisleblowers end up looking like they're just complainers or dissatified and look worse than the person doing the wrong. So, many people won't blow because of this.

Since most won't, the only way to make it work is to give them reward for doing so.
Something that offsets the eventual loss from the actions.

There are a few that do it because it's the right thing to do, not being motivated by revenge or envy. These people don't need a finacial incentive, but they're by far the few.

I worked for an ISO/IEC 17025 accredited calibration company and was let go because I took notes on their activities. They do in house biomedical calibration and repair in almost every continental state and limited aviation equipment calibration in a few states.

I overheard a conversation between the shop foreman and an ex-employee one day and I took a few notes. The ex-employee (who now has his own business at the local ?major airport?) asked him to calibrate some equipment and fudge the dates.

Well another employee, who I thought was my friend, told the owner about my notes. The next day I was fired. My friend said they had found my notes, which was a lie because I took them with me that night. Any way, come the next morning I was gone, no questions asked.

What?s worse is that when I started working there, I marked a piece of equipment "out of tolerance" (from our biggest customer with hospitals in almost every state) and I was quickly told to never-ever mark a piece of equipment "out of tolerance? from those people because it would cause all kinds of hassles and paper work etc... Then they wouldn?t like us no more.

WTF... isn?t that the reason for ISO certs and calibration???? It supposed to make people do paper work so that they don?t do the same furb again...right? Well during the next year of my employment and the many hundreds of pieces of equipment calibrated, I never made that mistake again. None of that companies stuff was ever out of spec. due to my calculations nor anyone else that worked there.

What really sucks is that I tried calling anyone and everyone; the state, the feds, attorneys, ISO, and anyone else that listen. I called the stated capital, EEOC, and some of their competitors. Everyone agreed that, "yes it?s a problem" and ?glad I am not on that plane or in that hospital? but no one knew anyone that I could call who would give a damn.
So there you have it. Any ideas?

Sen Alan Simpson said it best:
"If you have integrity, nothing else matters; if you don't have integrity, nothing else matters".

It all depends on how powerful the people are who you cross. It also depends on whether they are removed from office or not.
Its one thing to tell somebody that you will not help them in their dishonest act and quite another to set actions in motion that are likely to rebound on you with out changing anything.
Cheers
Ralph

and integrity are not necessarily synonymous.

So you have a shady boss, maybe he's embelzing goods or money. Somehow you were on the eavesdropper wave length when you heard something or seen something. So you tell, problem is sure you boss is stupid enough not to use cryptic code when talking about it. So you tell, boss covers himself up nicely makes the offending item disappear. Now what? You loose your job, you get a black mark on your name. You dont get rewarded from anyone because it couldnt be proven. That I would worry about!
To me it would have to be a very serious offense before I would rat on anyone.

I did some amateur whistleblowing in the 90's, it led to my being called a liar by the Mayor (on TV), ordered to resign (which I refused), reassigned, harassed (at work and at home)into a nervous breakdown, A First Amendment lawsuit (in which I won $125,000), Rehire, further harassment (leading to a second breakdown), Declaration of mental disability due to major depression, Disability retirement from the City and from Social Security. Yes, I would HAVE to do it again. I was raised to be honest and forthright. I would have suffered the same depression if I had *not* reported what I knew.

As a former federal employee and whistleblower, I can tell you not to bother. The truth is what you might be reporting is what will get some bosses promoted.

I had a list of items that should have put my idiot "bosses" in jail including child porn issues/lying to federal agents. My idiot boss got a promotion. I have been unemployed since 2002. I have been yelled at, lied to about jobs and so on. This is just one "supervisor" and most of the rest are the same.

Where did I work? NASA. I'm glad Obama could not care less about NASA and I hope he ruins its funding. I hate NASA and everything it represents.

a raw deal it is. Im sorry that idiot prevert boss got promoted. Many lose their jobs over whistleblowing. I was in a situation where my job only entitled certian things in a factory line. But then all of a sudden it was my responsibility to yank out food goods, out of a chop your hand/arm off type of machine, that obviously had a block. Of course I didnt want to risk it, the machine worker informed me that I do it or lose my job. I was young back then, I didnt know any better no one taught me the laws of the workplace in this country. So I did it, against my risks. Hopefully I was careful enough to get out. Now in the law world it would be then turned around, if I got my hand chopped off then they would state if it's so horrible you miswell not work there. Ok I was 16 years old at the time, the first paying job I ever experienced. I had nothing else to fall back on. This is the corruption in the work place where the bosses still win when it's supposed to be the damaged workers.

If a problem was worthy of my concern, I would be a whistle blower. It would not require a payment. I would take the loss and move on. My life is full of "taking the lumps" of my own choosing. But it has to warrant it! I will not throw my efforts into shallow causes.

Been there done that and got off the worst. Was fired from my company for picking up the problem at their client. They used different excuses to cover it up, but I'll do it again, anytime!

But what if the whistle blowing situation anticipates far more and far greater abuses in (e.g.) the market, such as Enron?

Sometimes the long term effects of corporate/directorial/managerial abuse exceed that of a 'little local difficulty', and extend to the well being of a nation.

I don't believing in sh*tting in my own backyard either.

To me it seems wrong that the incentive of monetary compensation is needed for people to do what is right. It's an even sadder commentary on the ethics of the world that whistleblowers are even needed.

I would blow the whistle in a heartbeat. No incentive needed. Because at the end of the day, I want to be able to live with myself and remain true to my ideals. And I wouldn't want to work for company that has questionable ethics.

I agree with you about the wrongness of monetary compensation incentives and that whistleblowers are even needed. However, I have seen many whistleblowers suffer the wrath of their supervisors and above that makes the rest of their tenure at a company a living hell, whether the company has a "whistleblower" policy in effect or not.

Given this, these whistleblowers must have some incentive to disclose wrongdoing because unfortunately, being the state of the economy, many people simply do not have the choice of what company they work for and whether or not the company's work ethics are intact.

and why would a company with high ethics not want someone who had blown the whisle in another company they had worked for. they may even want that person more because they know they have high ethics.

I've blown the whistle for free on several occasions. It's wonderful to watch how the system responds by trying to put you in jail for pointing out illegal activity...

2 points to make...The government, who is so virtuous and honest, wants me to report on others. Maybe if congress and every other government official from a local town supervisor up to the president of the US(dem or rep) had a sliver of integrity then they can have the "right" to ask this of me. Not that I would do so. I have worked for 2 companies that were not honest in their dealings, so I left the company. My current position the company sometimes misleads some of the potential customers but I usually talk to them and make things right. That is why I am not on corporate's good side. I have spoken to friends in management and verified this. They say I am too honest with my dealings. The other concern is how far will this "snitching" go. Remember what happened in Nazi Germany, children were informants for the government and ratting out their "own parents". Will forgeting to note a lottery winning cause your child to call the IRS on you? If the company you work for is lacking integrity then you either fill it or get out!!! However..do not lose yours..if you have any that is.

If you don?t report wrong doing, and the government finds out later that you knew and didn?t report the wrong doing, you become an ?accessory after the fact?. Especially if it your employer is the wrong doer, and you are receiving a paycheck.

The reasoning behind the act is to allow the companies to report wrong doing on themselves rather than have government auditors/inspectors finding the problem.

There are people in jail today due to the government auditors/inspectors (like the Treasures? OCC) that have found people that knew of wrong doing in banks, and those individuals did not report the actions in the Bank.

The law allows people in the know, to report the issue, get fired, receive some compensation, rather than going to jail.

This is really totally out of context for IT, much more financial and banking. The only reason I know is because my wife worked for the OCC as a banking regulator, and there are people in jail today because of her.

Additionally, the lack of regulatory oversight by Bush?s OCC was root cause of the banking failure in 2008. Congress is trying to make things less dependent on who is running the OCC.

As a friend of mine would say 'ding ding, Don Pardo'. Bang on the mark. Rights imply duties and vice versa; people who've the right to practise any form of business have a duty to not harm other people.

The British labour government believed in 'regulation with a light touch'. More like banking with a light touchpaper, which almost resulted in the meltdown of our banking system; Northern Rock had a banking model little better than a stone, hurrying back to earth, and their decline was written 20 years ago. If only someone had allowed us insight into their trajectory, viewed from an inside perspective. Then there was RBS, which the nation now more or less owns, along with other financial institutions we had to bail out so that our country did not go down the toilet.

Additionally, the lack of regulatory oversight by Bush?s OCC was root cause of the banking failure in 2008. Congress is trying to make things less dependent on who is running the OCC.

There are already, plenty of regulations for the banking industry, and adding more doesn't necessarily mean that people would comply with the new set of regulations. It's the same as a criminal who knows that there are laws against the crimes he's going to commit, but will commit the crime anyway. So, adding another law to criminalize the behavior that is already illegal would not have any effect on those that will violate the law anyway.

However, where you are completely wrong, is in the placement of the blame for the banking failure.

Bush and his administration, for the better part of 8 years, warned over and over again about the bad practices in the banking industry, most specifically in the mortgage industry, that would eventually lead to a crisis.

But, each time Bush warned congress and the American people, liberal democrats stepped in to state that there were not problems with the lending/mortgage industry. Barney Frank, as an example, made sure that he went in front of the cameras to "debunk" Bush every time that Bush issued his warnings. So, without the support of congress, and without the willingness of congress to do anything about the building crisis, Bush could not do anything. If you want to, or need to, place blame on anybody, it was most specifically the people with congressional oversight who blocked Bush every time he wanted to do something.

However, when it comes to the real big culprit for the financial collapse, you have to look to the longer term history of what really caused the crash.

When mortgages were easy to get, with no credit history required or checked, and with no down payments required, and oftentimes, with no job requirement, people were allowed to get mortgages for homes to which they weren't qualified. And then, the banks were encouraged to make those bad mortgages by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae because, those "government backed" institutions would take those bad mortgages off the books of the banks. So, if anyone was to blame, it was congress and the "government" inspired mortgage arm of the country, namely Freddie and Fannie.

But, going further back, the easy mortgage frenzy would not even have gotten started if it wasn't for the Community Reinvestment Act, passed by congress and signed by Jimmy Carter more than 30 years ago; that same law was given regulatory and enforcement teeth by a law signed by Clinton in the 90s. It is after Clinton signed the enforcement rules for the CRA that the mortgage giveaways really starting taking off. So, it took over 30 years before the damage became so big that the mortgage bubble just had to burst. That it burst during Bush's years is not something that should be blamed on Bush. The buildup was something that occurred for many years before Bush was even elected, although it continued during his years. But, Bush did try to warn us about the crisis being built. Nobody listened and congress just tried to discredit Bush's warnings as unmerited.

So, the real history of the crisis doesn't match your statements regarding Bush's part in the financial downturn.

You say that there were already laws in effect to prevent this.

You then say that the executive branch agency responsible for enforcing those existing laws couldn't do it because it didn't have the support of Congress.

I'm missing something here. Since when does an existing agency need further support from Congress to enforce existing law?

Sounds like an excuse to me.

We employees (and ex-employees) aren't the only ones who seem to lack the b***s to take action as needed.

We employees (and ex-employees) aren't the only ones who seem to lack the b***s to take action as needed.

Employees and ex-employees?

That is so generic. That is probably 99% of the population. And, you're actually tagging yourself as a coward, or didn't you notice?

But, in the overall scheme of things, your post says absolutely nothing about what the guy above you wrote, or about what I wrote.

So, have you ever contributed anything at all to society other than breathing our air and eating our food?

left his italics on.

From an edit?

what it is that I wrote.

Here's the part you object to:

There are already, plenty of regulations for the banking industry, and adding more doesn't necessarily mean that people would comply with the new set of regulations. It's the same as a criminal who knows that there are laws against the crimes he's going to commit, but will commit the crime anyway. So, adding another law to criminalize the behavior that is already illegal would not have any effect on those that will violate the law anyway.

Notice the part where I said "adding more doesn't necessarily mean that people would comply with the new set of regulations".

That part is always true, whether you agree with the statement or not. Adding other layers of regulations or laws on top of laws that already make certain behaviors illegal, is not going to change the mind of a criminal that is bound and determined to commit his/her crime.

You then say that the executive branch agency responsible for enforcing those existing laws couldn't do it because it didn't have the support of Congress.

You are not very good at understanding what you read, or you failed to read carefully.

What I did say is that, when Bush wanted to do something about the mortgage/financial mess that was building up, congresspeople, especially Barney Frank, spoke against doing anything. In case you didn't know, Frank is a leader in congress and is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and was always very prominent in oversight of financial matters for congress and the mortgage and financial industries. And Frank wasn't the only one involved in trying to quash any actions from Bush involving the mortgage/financial industries.

I'm missing something here.

You sure are!

It's your lack of understanding what you read that is missing.

Since when does an existing agency need further support from Congress to enforce existing law?

They don't. But, that's not what I was saying.

What I did say is that, when Bush wanted something done to reign in the mortgage and financial industries, and the shady and crooked dealings happening with the real-estate markets, congress got in the way of taking any actions.

With so many regulations already in the books against crooked financial dealings, I'm pretty sure we didn't need any further regulations or laws to reign in the criminal behavior in Wall Street or in the banking sector. But, even when Bush wanted investigations and perhaps additional regulations, he was blocked by congressional leaders who always stated that the mortgage and financial industries were on sound ground.

I am not a big government advocate, and I'm against congress conducting any investigations, especially when congress proven not to be trustworthy, and everything they do is politically motivated. But, at least some hearings were called for when it came to finding out what Wall Street and the banks and the mortgages agencies, specifically Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were up to.

Sounds like an excuse to me.

Sounds like you have a hard time understanding what you read and you are very ignorant of the situations regarding the mortgage and financial industries when Bush was in office, and even prior to that.

Basically, you haven't really presented a good argument against anything I did say in my prior post.

There are already, plenty of regulations for the banking industry, and adding more doesn't necessarily mean that people would comply with the new set of regulations.

What I did say is that, when Bush wanted to do something about the mortgage/financial mess that was building up, congresspeople, especially Barney Frank, spoke against doing anything.

What the heck does Barney Frank or anybody else in Congress have to do with enforcing the "plenty of regulations for the banking industry"? Bush didn't need to go to Congress. All he had to do was get the various banking regulators and SEC off their tired butts to enforce those "plenty of regulations."

Do you now understand my point?

Your post reads to me like another one of those screeds blaming one group (Democrats in Congress) for the actions of another group (bankers and regulators) in an attempt to excuse a third (Bush, Cheney, et al.). All the code words are there...

As for your final insinuations, I didn't lose a dime. I was smart enough to not invest in derivatives in the first place.

Enjoy.

edit: btw, could you please go back up a couple of posts and edit it to close your italics out? http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-12850-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=335704&messageID=3356781&tag=main;wideContent

Thanks.

It's bad enough that you spill your fermented navel fluff.
But when you repeat it all time and time again, repetition serving to replace the argument that you forgot to put in your steaming pile in the first place... then it begins to approach crime against humanity.
Just saying, is all.

What the heck does Barney Frank or anybody else in Congress have to do with enforcing the "plenty of regulations for the banking industry"?

Regulations are supposed to be the responsibility of the law enforcement arm of the various levels of government, including the federal, where the Attorney General is supposed to make sure that laws are obeyed and enforced.

But, in the real world of Washington, that's not the way things work. Everything is politicized, including law enforcement. And, if law enforcement is attempted on politically sensitive issues, like illegal immigration and illegal aliens, there will be hell to pay when congress and the president get involved. The same thing applied when Bush tried to warn about the coming financial/mortgage crisis.

Though you may be right about Bush not needing to get congress' approval, he was not going to be able to get anything done without the support of congress and the financial industry. Get it now? It doesn't matter what laws and regulations were in place; rules and regulations by themselves were not going to solve the major problems being built up. Understand now?

Bush didn't need to go to Congress.

You're living in an alternate reality world. Whenever anything has political implications, congress is always involved, no matter what laws may be in the books.

All he had to do was get the various banking regulators and SEC off their tired butts to enforce those "plenty of regulations."

Yeah! Very simple.

Not!!!

Again, in a world where everybody follows the rules and obeys all the laws, you would be correct. But, when there are political implications, the law becomes the enemy.

Do you now understand my point?

In a very simple world, where everybody gets along, and rules and regulations are obeyed, and every sings "Kumbaya" around a campfire, you would be correct.

But, you forgot to think about that all-important and intrusive word: "politics".

Politically speaking, you are very naive. As an example, and as I've already pointed out, the president and his administration are supposed to enforce all the laws and regulations regarding illegal aliens, but what he is doing is the opposite in encouraging people to break the law, and he's allowing illegals to stay and is oftentimes releasing them into the general population with no punishment whatsoever. Get it, now?

Your post reads to me like another one of those screeds blaming one group (Democrats in Congress) for the actions of another group (bankers and regulators)

Before congress and governments intervened into the mortgage and financial industry, there wasn't a real-estate crisis. Yeah, you might have encountered crooks in the financial industry and in banking and in the issuing of mortgages, but it had not become the "standard way of conducting business". The fact is that the CRA, which has been in effect since the late 1970s, is the primary culprit for the damage done to the financial/mortage/banking industries. Easy home ownership encouraged bad deals crooked deals. And, with the government buying the bad mortgages, of course, the banks and financial industries were going to take advantage. Haven't you even been aware how we got into the mess to begin with?

in an attempt to excuse a third (Bush, Cheney, et al.). All the code words are there...

I'm not excusing Bush. Bush himself became part of the problem with his big spending ideas. He was also weak in the followup to his agenda ideas, such as privatizing Social Security. In that same fashion, he didn't follow up on his statements about the impending mortgage crisis, so in that sense, I'm kind of agreeing with you; but the agreement goes as far as being politically weak and not wanting to take on congress on their denials of the impending problems in the mortgage/financial sectors.

As for your final insinuations, I didn't lose a dime. I was smart enough to not invest in derivatives in the first place.

Refresh my mind again. Where did I insinuate anything? I don't recall accusing you of acting in your own interests against the backdrop of the crooked dealings and financial mess? However, I'm pretty sure there were plenty of people who took advantage of the situation, including many current and former people in government, like Rahm Emmanuel and Franklin Raines, who ended up multi-millionaires as a result.

But when you repeat it all time and time again,

Repetition is the stuff of learning. And since people like you have a hard time learning, I have to repeat myself over and over again.

then it begins to approach crime against humanity.

That is so stupid. Stupidity is the biggest crime against humanity. It's harmful to yourself and to all others.

Just saying, is all.

And yet, you said nothing. Nothing of any value at all.

Look, it's always best to make contributions whenever you post anything. You haven't added anything of any value to any discussion where you posted.

So, why not just stay away until you grow up, and perhaps by then, you'll have something of some real value to contribute. Mind you, I'm not holding my breath.

You write piles of poo.
No content within.
Learn to read what you write!
Before posting!
And: Remember; grammatical does not equal meaningful.
Your most annoying habit is: You write something unfounded. Then you write "points" to support it, except they don't. They just hang there, underneath it.

Dangleberries!

For example, here's one of your gems from that childish mind of yours:

You write piles of poo.

It should be quite obvious, even to you, that you have a lot of growing up to do. Meanwhile, leave the grownups alone and go play your video games.

No content within.

No content that you could understand. Remember: I write mostly to an adult or grown-up audience, and you're far from that.

Learn to read what you write! Before posting!

Methinks that the problem is mostly on your side if you can't understand what I write.

And: Remember; grammatical does not equal meaningful.

Grammatically correct matters, and content matters. But, what matters most is writing to an audience that understands what is written. Sorry that you're having such a hard time understanding. I do try to keep it as simple as I can for the simple-minded out there, but, even then, it seems that you're having a hard time at reading and understanding. I'll have to consult a kindergarten teacher to learn how to write for an audience that includes you.

Your most annoying habit is: You write something unfounded.

Up until now, you have not indicated where the material I write is unfounded. What you've done until now is to throw your childish tantrums and attack without refuting. So, if you do really think that my material is unfounded, point to it and debate it and even refute it with the real facts, if you can. Meanwhile, being generic about how "unfounded" my material is, will not win you the argument.

Then you write "points" to support it, except they don't.

There are people who refuse to accept the truth and who prefer to remain blind to the facts. You are a very good example of that.

Like I said, if there are points that you think that you can effectively refute, then by all means, do so. Being generic and not presenting any real points or facts of your own, is just ignorant and childish.

They just hang there, underneath it.

My points will always "hang there" for those who aren't capable of understanding them, or who refuse to acknowledge them.

You make the most sense when you use your Chinese, and that 99% of the people in the U.S. can't understand. Chinese may not be gobbledygook, but you might as well be writing in Martian when you don't really have anything constructive to add or to contribute to any conversation.

Meanwhile, again, stop being a nuisance and go play some video games or something.

Still couldn't come up with anything of substance outside excusing the financial enforcement lapses during the Bush administration by blaming Congress.

I am nonplussed.

Don't you see that adornoe is in possession of "fact" and no other is?

There is no other way about it other than what he says (committed to my judgment of "he" on account of testosterone-induced exclusivity).

You not only waste his time; you annoy him.

I'm already trying to teach a pig to sing?

Until he acknowledges his personal part in all this, I see no point in it.

that when he makes a riposte... and he does so all the time, to dodge the content problem he has... it's either a complete miss, or a perfect hit, to his own ass.
Really impressive, that one can criticize poor argumentation, and fail to recognize that poor argumentation as one's own.

and now, you're just as idiotic in your remarks as them.

I'm already trying to teach a pig to sing?

So, that's how you answer my challenge to speak to the topic? Instead of engaging in intelligent conversation, you resort to name calling. That is the last refuge of a coward.

Finally took the time to wade through all the tripe

You call it tripe because you can't refute any of the points I've made. You can only resort to name calling and repeating what you've heard in the past without using whatever you have for a brain.

Still couldn't come up with anything of substance

Of course not.

You either don't understand what you read or you have been brainwashed into a hard liberal mind-set. Or, you simply don't care to acknowledge that I might be right and that you are wrong. That's the same as "denial". It might be very hard for you, but perhaps if you open up your mind a little bit, you might be able to understand the real truth on many and perhaps all issues. Right now, you're just simply stuck on dumb.

outside excusing the financial enforcement lapses during the Bush administration by blaming Congress.

Sometimes, the excuses are true. And you haven't had a valid argument to refute what it is that I said regarding Bush's culpability on the issue of the economy or on the financial/banking/mortgage problems which have virtually destroyed our economy.

Just pointing a finger at Bush is not the answer nor the real explanation for what happened. I gave you the facts on the matter and like a child who couldn't stand the truth, you resorted to childish behavior, just like santeewending and AnsuGisalas.

For a moment, I thought that you were a bit more grown up than those other two, and that you could perhaps be reached for a real intelligent discussion on points. But, no, you proved me very wrong. How does it feel to be in agreement with those other two ignorant clowns?

Am I a liberal? Let's see.
- I believe in the right to free thought and speech; I also believe there should be consequences for exercising those rights irresponsibly. I don't believe the government, or anybody else, has the right to tell me what I can or can't read, watch, or do, as long as the reading, watching, or doing causes no harm to others.
- I don't believe I have the right to tell anybody else how to spend their money, how to worship, how to keep their house, who to live with, or how to think, unless their exercise of those rights infringes on my own. "I" includes my government.
- I believe in the right to bear arms.
- I believe the government has an obligation to its citizens to ensure that each citizen has the same opportunities as all the others.
- I believe in responsible taxation.
- I believe the failure of the American citizen to educate himself on the issues is the primary cause of the current political and economical situation. (Note: "Educating yourself on the issues" requires getting your news from more than one source, doing your own research and not listening to those who would tell you how to think, and comparing that which you find to that which you are being told.)

Does that make me a liberal? In a simplistic, not-with-us-then-against-us, black-or-white, don't have to think about it way, I suppose it probably does.

Your entire point is based on the idea that not only do you know what's good for me, I should be happy for you to tell me what that is, and overjoyed to comply with your wishes. Please tell me how this differs from anything you accuse the 'socialists' of wanting to do.

The point is, adornoe, you have made no points. Every one of your posts is an echo of the first. Every one of them spouts the same overblown opinion and unsubstantiated rumor heard on Faux News since Barak Obama won the election. Every time you have been called on to justify your opinion, you have dodged and weaved; I'm surprised you haven't fallen back on "everybody knows". Now you say you wish to stay on the original poster's topic? You're the one who introduced this line of discussion, and you're not willing to discuss it? Not only void of independent thought, but an intellectual coward as well.

it
harms
none
do
as
thou
wilt

Funny how the simple wiccan creed can cover so much of what so many people have written so much to substantiate.

Those are strikingly conservative (no, not relegated solely to political terminology) points.

the conservatives have been left without a party - Victims of a hijacking... except maybe that should be a lojacking, perpetrated by rabid moles, as it were.

Eisenhower is one of the great ones, had a good eye for how the soviets worked too, too bad they weren't ready for perestrojka then.

Since I actually think for myself and don't hew to their party line 100%, I'm not with them, I'm against them. Ask adornoe, he'll tell you. But then, that opinion doesn't matter to me.

Aside: Have you noticed that the way the neocons want to make over the US is no less radical than anything Abbie Hoffman or Angela Davis ever dreamed up?

talked about.

I call it tripe because that's what it is

You call it tripe because you either don't understand the points I'm making or you refuse to acknowledge those points. It's the same as being in denial.

Am I a liberal? Let's see.

Fine. Let's see...

- I believe in the right to free thought and speech;

Fine and dandy, but, don't Obama and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid say the same things while doing the opposite?

I also believe there should be consequences for exercising those rights irresponsibly. I don't believe the government, or anybody else, has the right to tell me what I can or can't read, watch, or do, as long as the reading, watching, or doing causes no harm to others.

I can agree with that, except that, who is it going to be that decides what is offensive or irresponsible or harmful? That's very important when someone is going to be the "arbiter" and that arbiter isn't very fond of our freedoms.

- I don't believe I have the right to tell anybody else how to spend their money, how to worship, how to keep their house, who to live with, or how to think, unless their exercise of those rights infringes on my own. "I" includes my government.

How is it possible for anyone exercising any of "those rights" to ever be infringing on your rights? Whose rights are more important, yours or somebody else's?

- I believe in the right to bear arms.

But, should government ever be able to put any restrictions on that right? That has been the area where democrats and liberals have been putting most of their efforts, on the restrictions. Restrictions can oftentimes reach as far as making the ownership and handling of "arms" illegal.

- I believe the government has an obligation to its citizens to ensure that each citizen has the same opportunities as all the others.

We depart company here.

In the U.S., the only obligation from the "federal" government is to keep the citizens safe from external enemies, and to enforce laws across state lines, and to regulate interstate commerce (not the same as taking over any part of industry, and not the same as controlling through regulations to the detriment of any industry or business or the economy as a whole).

Beyond those points, if it's not clearly spelled out in the constitution, the federal government does not have any further obligations to its citizens. Look up the 10th amendment to the constitution. Anything that the federal government is not explicitly authorized to handle, the local and state governments have a right to undertake, even if it includes giving people everything they need (which would be very stupid and ruinous anyway).

Through the constitution, the people have the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Nothing in the constitution says that the government should be guaranteeing anything, or giving a lending hand to anyone. And, the "pursuit of happiness" does not mean that government should guarantee that a person is entitled to a job or to a home or to food or to even a happy life. But, the government has created many "entitlements" in the last 80+ years, and that's not what the constitution was about.

But, the way you put it, it sounds like you're opening the door for government intervention into people's lives for the purposes of guaranteeing a good outcome to everyone. Whenever a door is left slightly opened for government, there will be those that take advantage, like the democrats have done with the "commerce clause" and which they've abused to create massive government social programs or "entitlements".

- I believe in responsible taxation.

Sounds good, but, very nebulous. What the heck is "responsible taxation"?

- I believe the failure of the American citizen to educate himself on the issues is the primary cause of the current political and economical situation.

Agreed!

But, the information has to be gathered and dispersed and the people doing the gathering and dispersing (aka-the media) can take advantage and control the messages and thereby, control, even if indirectly, how the people think and how they will vote.

(Note: "Educating yourself on the issues" requires getting your news from more than one source, doing your own research and not listening to those who would tell you how to think, and comparing that which you find to that which you are being told.)

That's part of the solution.

But, there are many different sources and the great majority of sources are "liberal" in thought and in coverage and analysis. The few (comparatively) "right leaning" sources are constantly being attacked by the majority press and liberals for being "radical and wacky". So, how are the people, who get their news and information from the left-leaning majority press, going to be able to discern between the truth and the spin and the lies?

Does that make me a liberal?

Perhaps not totally. Maybe a moderate democrat? Or a liberal republican? Or a middle-of-the-roader.

The fact is that, if you're description of your politics is true, then you'd be a bot more republican than liberal. But, it wouldn't make you a conservative.

In a simplistic, not-with-us-then-against-us, black-or-white, don't have to think about it way, I suppose it probably does.

Politics is not simple, but it ain't rocket science. But, in a world where people can be easily misled, or don't care to investigate what the real truth is, the simplistic will suffice and people will make bad choices. I call people like that "surface thinkers", which essentially means that they go with the flow and aren't really thinking.



Your entire point is based on the idea that not only do you know what's good for me, I should be happy for you to tell me what that is, and overjoyed to comply with your wishes.

You're reading too much into what I say.

I'm not going to force my views on you. What I do want is for people to confront the issues with the facts ready in hand. Anything I say, can be refuted by somebody presenting the facts that are contrary to "my set of facts". But, just opposing for the sake of opposing does not equate to a valid argument.

Please tell me how this differs from anything you accuse the 'socialists' of wanting to do.

Socialism cannot tolerate different viewpoints or different ideologies. For socialism to work and to actually take hold for the long-run, it needs to suppress the opposition, and especially our freedoms. That's where communism was very suppresive with its intolerance.

What I ask is for people to simply put out their "facts" and to not just make general statements with no support through the facts. For example, if Bush was, according to some here, responsible for the recession in progress now, then those people should be able to explain, with the facts and in detail, how their assertions are true. The fact that Bush was president when the mortgage/financial bubble finally burst, is not the fact that proves that it was "Bush's fault!".

The point is, adornoe, you have made no points.

Then, why are you even bothering to counter my "non-points"? Call it a day and move on and ignore my posts.

Every one of your posts is an echo of the first.

The point is lost after a few additional posts have gone by. But, if you were to go back in the posts to the original point I was making, then you'd realize that I actually did have a point to make, and I will continue insisting on people proving that my original point was false. Hint: the point in question related to Bush's culpability, or lack thereof, in the economic meltdown. Now, go hunting.

Every one of them spouts the same overblown opinion and unsubstantiated rumor

If my posts did have "overblown opinion and unsubstantiated rumors", then you are wrong about my posts being just "echoes" of the first. What I stated originally was not opinion; it was a fact.

And, apparently, you're continuing to argue about my "point" being just opinion while you're not really sure what my original point was. How do you argue when you're not sure what you're arguing about?

heard on Faux News

Spoken like someone who doesn't like a different source for news and information. That's what the liberals do best. Are you sure you're not a liberal?

How can you state that you support people getting their news and information from a variety of sources, and then you go and brand "FOX" news as not being a worthy source? You're just as hypocritical as the lefties who hate FOX news for presenting views that in any way oppose their spin and lies.

But, if you really believe that FOX news is not worthy of watching, then you should present the reason that you believe they're just "faux" news. If you believe that FOX is being partisan and are just political hacks for the republicans, like the democrats charge, then you should explain how that is, and with proof. BTW, did you know that the majority of people prefer to watch FOX, and has a viewing audience larger than all of the other cable news channels combined. Why would that huge majority prefer to watch "fake" news? Do you have a good explanation for that?

since Barak Obama won the election.

What has FOX ever said regarding Obama that was not true? You are being the judge about what is fact or not, so, if FOX has lied about Obama, then, can you please point it out? I'm not talking about mistakes, because all news organizations make mistakes. What you're charging is that FOX news lies or is completely against Obama just because he's a democrat or he's black or he's not a republican. So, explain how your view of FOX news is fact.


Every time you have been called on to justify your opinion, you have dodged and weaved;

I have not been challenged to justify my opinion. And, I don't need to do that.

I'm the one doing the challenging about the information from other people to prove that their statements are the real "facts". If you don't know what the argument is about, then just move on to some other discussion.

I'm surprised you haven't fallen back on "everybody knows".

I'm not delusional. I'm very practical, and from the looks or sounds of it, a lot more practical than you.

From the beginning, all that I did was to challenge people on their "facts" and assertions. If you don't understand that, then it will be impossible to explain it in more detail to you. To hint at my original challenge: it was about some people asserting that the economic downturn was "Bush's fault!".

Now you say you wish to stay on the original poster's topic?

Nope!

What I was referring to, is the topic introduced in a response, which is slightly above all of the extraneous discussion we're all involved in now. Here's the part of that response to the original topic, which triggered me to respond: Additionally, the lack of regulatory oversight by Bush?s OCC was root cause of the banking failure in 2008.

Notice that "root cause" statement? That was very ignorant.

So, do you agree with that statement from poster, malcolm davis, who hasn't even responded to my original rebuttal? Does that get you straightened out about what it is that I'm talking about?

You're the one who introduced this line of discussion,

Follow this thread to the post above that was written by "malcom davis". It was his post that introduced this sub-topic. So, you're wrong there again.

and you're not willing to discuss it?

I've beaten this horse to death and you people keep insisting that I keep beating it some more. I've presented my points, along with "my" set of facts, and you continue insisting that I have not.

Not only void of independent thought, but an intellectual coward as well.

The cowards are those that cannot take the time to understand or to even read what it is that I've been writing and saying. If you don't understand a line of discussion, then you need to stay away and move on.


BTW, one last thing:

You mentioned above about people needing to get their information from a variety of sources. I agreed with that. But is that the real or best solution? The real question is: how do you go about making sure that people get to see all sides of every issue? People may not have the time or the resources to get at all the different presentations of the news/information/analysis.

Since I've already mentioned that I agree with your take on the need for many sources, so that people can make better informed decisions, I believe that I can devise a way for that to occur. I've already hinted to that idea in a post I made to AnsuGisalas. And believe me, it would solve the information crisis which the American people have now. And, hey, it would not play favorites with either the left, or the right, or anywhere in-between.

I'm already working on the idea and I already have a working model. But, I'm not ready for implementation and it might be a while before implementation. But, I hope that it will be ready for the 2012 election cycle where I think it will make a difference, but I'm trying to get it done way before that.

If the information needs to get out, I would provide a way for it to be heard and seen and even understood, no matter what the source(s). And by sources, I mean all sources; left, right, in-between, and even radical. No bias from any side. Though I myself might be conservative, I am determined to get all sides heard.

Don't tell me. I think I already know. You are putting the finishing touches on a perpetual-motion political marketing device.

Not according to the neocons

So, what's your problem with the neocons. Do you know what "neocon" actually means. Very likely not, but now that I've asked you the question, you'll look it up and pretend that you knew it all along.

So, again, what is your problem with the "neocons". Hint: Reagan himself was a "neocon".

But, you sound exactly like a liberal with your asinine attacks. When you hang around them too much, or when you pick up their talking points, you become one of them. It doesn't matter how much you may deny being a liberal.

Since I actually think for myself and don't hew to their party line 100%,

You're not a republican, and if you were actually registered as a republican, you would be what conservatives call a "RINO", or republican in name only. A RINO is part of the problem and not someone looking for solutions. A RINO works mostly with the democrats, and helps to advance the democratic side of the issues.

I'm not with them, I'm against them.

First, you're not a liberal, and then you declare yourself to be "anti-neocon" which is the same as being with the democrats, and that brands you a liberal. And, don't give me that crap about "black-and-white" or "not-with-me-then-you're-against-me" crap. If you don't like what you hear from the neoccons or republicans or conservatives, you're not in any way a republican and you are more on the side of the liberals. Even independents don't take sides as much as you have.

Ask adornoe, he'll tell you. But then, that opinion doesn't matter to me.

You don't matter. The only time you matter is when you go to vote, and then, no doubt you're voting very ignorantly. You are one of those that needs saving from the spin and lies that you accept into your daily life from the liberal media. You may think that you're one of the "enlightened", but you're living in a liberal bubble.

Aside: Have you noticed that the way the neocons want to make over the US is no less radical than anything Abbie Hoffman or Angela Davis ever dreamed up?

That is so idiotic!

Okay, you made the comparison, so, I'm challenging y9u to explain how the "neocons" and those other two people are alike.

BTW, I'll give you a head-start on figuring out what "neocon" means. "Neo" means "new", and "con" means "conservative". So what is it that the whole "word" means to you?

I'll give you my definition of "neocon" from my own experience. I am a "neocon" after I was mugged by reality and stopped being a liberal. It is said that the best republican is a former democrat; but I take it a step further and say that the best republican is a former democrat after he's been mugged by reality.

You have a lot of growing up to do, and your asinine statements prove that.