Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire

[Belsnickel]

(04-07-2023, 04:33 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Definitely wrong there. 
He's donated to some Dems.

I asked for a specific example, You are the one making the claim so prove it. 

I didn't specify what political leaning Club for Growth spent money on, just that they supported one side of several cases before the SCOTUS. So no, not wrong. And you also didn't say "a specific example." In response to me saying he has funded conservative groups for decades that are putting cases through the courts, you said "[g]ot proof?" I provided it. Both Club for Growth and AEI receive significant funding from Crow and both have played roles in cases going to SCOTUS. This is all general knowledge that is publicly available to anyone with a Google search. I made the claim. I proved it.

[Belsnickel]

(04-07-2023, 04:00 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: He would be in the wrong IF the rules that were changed/clarified were in effect all this time, they only came into effect in the last month. 


Since 1978, the Ethics in Government Act has required judges and justices to report travel costs and other expenses that are provided to them by groups, universities and other such entities. However, it includes an exception for the “personal hospitality of any individual,” so long as the travel does not involve official business.

Both parties involved have clearly stated there was no BUSINESS during any these vacations. So no violations. 

I don't disagree with you on this. This is just one of those fun "letter versus spirit" things. I mean, there is a reason Crow's statement on the travel almost exactly mirrors the language of the exception. Seems like some thought had been given to that, almost like it was a CYA thing to work around the rules.

Probably wouldn't be as much of an issue if Thomas hadn't already been embroiled in conflict of interest issues in the not-so-distant past.

[CJD]

This may just be my cynicism talking, but I don't even feel this is that newsworthy. We all know that the supreme court is a political group. They are being lobbied just like any politician. Rich people wanting politicians' votes and "buying them" is nothing new.

The banality of evil is a political system where corruption is commonplace and barely even surprising (and to some does not even appear to be corruption because of how widespread it is).

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-07-2023, 05:59 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: This may just be my cynicism talking, but I don't even feel this is that newsworthy. We all know that the supreme court is a political group. They are being lobbied just like any politician. Rich people wanting politicians' votes and "buying them" is nothing new.

The banality of evil is a political system where corruption is commonplace and barely even surprising (and to some does not even appear to be corruption because of how widespread it is).

Pretty much, i'm not going to put much stock into it either.

If you want to knock out the corruption, start attacking insider trading and/or make anyone in the House/Senate put their family stocks in blind trusts just like the the POTUS has to do. If they did that, i wonder how many would be multi-millionaires after their terms are up and would probably put an end to life time terms. Ofc some would find a way around it, but catch them and nail them hard to dissuade others from trying.

[*pally*]

(04-07-2023, 06:56 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Pretty much, i'm not going to put much stock into it either.

If you want to knock out the corruption, start attacking insider trading and/or make anyone in the House/Senate put their family stocks in blind trusts just like the the POTUS has to do. If they did that, i wonder how many would be multi-millionaires after their terms are up and would probably put an end to life time terms. Ofc some would find a way around it, but catch them and nail them hard to dissuade others from trying.

The President does not have to place his holdings in a blind trust.  It became a tradition and a norm that Donald Trump, of course, shattered by his refusal to do the same with his.  Thus we had the spectacle of those wanting favors and attention from him putting money into his pocket by spending lavishly at the DC Trump Hotel

[SunsetBengal]

(04-07-2023, 05:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I didn't specify what political leaning Club for Growth spent money on, just that they supported one side of several cases before the SCOTUS. So no, not wrong. And you also didn't say "a specific example." In response to me saying he has funded conservative groups for decades that are putting cases through the courts, you said "[g]ot proof?" I provided it. Both Club for Growth and AEI receive significant funding from Crow and both have played roles in cases going to SCOTUS. This is all general knowledge that is publicly available to anyone with a Google search. I made the claim. I proved it.

I didn't see any documents attached to your posts that would resemble proof, other than you saying so, and us knowing from background that you are heavily involved in policy.  I think that MikeM was wanting you to actually show him how Crow benefits both sides whenever it suits their interests.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-07-2023, 07:20 PM)pally Wrote: The President does not have to place his holdings in a blind trust.  It became a tradition and a norm that Donald Trump, of course, shattered by his refusal to do the same with his.  Thus we had the spectacle of those wanting favors and attention from him putting money into his pocket by spending lavishly at the DC Trump Hotel

yea? been a while since i messed with any of that. So it's like showing your tax returns, you don't have to, but it's become an established norm for POTUS and nominees to do so.

[Belsnickel]

(04-07-2023, 07:33 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I didn't see any documents attached to your posts that would resemble proof, other than you saying so, and us knowing from background that you are heavily involved in policy.  I think that MikeM was wanting you to actually show him how Crow benefits both sides whenever it suits their interests.

That's asking me to prove more than I claimed. I said he was a donor to those things. That is public knowledge easily found just by looking up the guy's name. Anything more goes beyond what my claim was.

[Belsnickel]

(04-07-2023, 08:03 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: yea? been a while since i messed with any of that. So it's like showing your tax returns, you don't have to, but it's become an established norm for POTUS and nominees to do so.

Yep. There are a lot of things that have been in place like that. They came about because people recognized the value of doing them because they provided a sort of guardrail for our democratic processes. The problem is that so many didn't realize that they were just norms. So many of them have been dismantled in the past 40ish years that it makes one's head spin.

[Arturo Bandini]

Fun fact : The genereous donater is a Hitler's stuff collector !

https://www.washingtonian.com/2023/04/07/clarence-thomass-billionaire-benefactor-collects-hitler-artifacts/

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-08-2023, 11:04 AM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: Fun fact : The genereous donater is a Hitler's stuff collector !

https://www.washingtonian.com/2023/04/07/clarence-thomass-billionaire-benefactor-collects-hitler-artifacts/

So? he's a collector. 

It's like if a gun collector has guns from Germany from WWII (That doesn't automatically make the person a Nazi). 

It might not be YOUR thing, but to other collectors it would be a big deal.

[Arturo Bandini]

This is not german guns ...

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-08-2023, 01:55 PM)rturo Bandini Wrote: This is not german guns ...

¿No entiendes inglés?

He's a collector, he collects various things and has the money to buy just about what ever he wants to buy. So yea, he's gonna have some pieces that non-collectors wouldn't necessarily approve of because they don't understand the art of collecting.

So you don't think a WWII gun collector would be thrilled to get their hands on The .32-caliber gold-washed pistol, bearing floral engraving and Hitler’s inscribed initials, was given to the Nazi leader April 20, 1939, by a German family of well-known gun makers, the Walthers, as a 50th birthday gift? 

[Dill]

(04-08-2023, 02:21 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: ¿No entiendes inglés?

He's a collector, he collects various things and has the money to buy just about what ever he wants to buy. So yea, he's gonna have some pieces that non-collectors wouldn't necessarily approve of because they don't understand the art of collecting.

So you don't think a WWII gun collector would be thrilled to get their hands on The .32-caliber gold-washed pistol, bearing floral engraving and Hitler’s inscribed initials, was given to the Nazi leader April 20, 1939, by a German family of well-known gun makers, the Walthers, as a 50th birthday gift? 

I'd be happy to get my hands on a Hitler pistol, or his "diary" and correspondence/manuscripts, or his art work. Any NAZI artwork in fact.

And I wouldn't turn down Nazi regalia either,* but I would not display it anywhere except a site which contextualizes them.

A fascination with Nazi regalia for its own sake, collector or no, raises questions--though I don't know if that is really the case from
the info given so far. No questions if along with that regalia, the guy collects French and British and Soviet stuff from the same era. 

But if his focus is just on that regalia, as it is with neo-Nazis, and he displays it in his home, then I don't regard him a "just a collector," like someone with a stamp or coin collection.

*In fact, I do have some NAZI artefacts, like copies of Der Adler (the Luftwaffe's military magazine) and a National-socialist jokebook (though I seem to have misplaced it). My interest is historical and political though; I'm not a "collector." 

[*pally*]

I like reading and learning about WWII history...on both sides. One has to understand what was going on in Germany and Japan prior to the war and during the war years. However, I wouldn't display Nazi memorabilia in my home ever. Donate it to the WWII museum where it is displayed in context don't put it in your living room. If he wants people to understand the men displayed in his dictator garden again a museum is the best location for his statutes not his private backyard.

His collecting is very off-putting especially when coupled with his extremist conservative politics

[SunsetBengal]

(04-08-2023, 11:04 AM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: Fun fact : The genereous donater is a Hitler's stuff collector !

https://www.washingtonian.com/2023/04/07/clarence-thomass-billionaire-benefactor-collects-hitler-artifacts/

Is that the only kind of stuff that he's a collector of?  If it is, then it might be of concern.  If it's simply a small category in the catalogue of things that he's a collector of, then no news here.

[CJD]

(04-08-2023, 04:32 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Is that the only kind of stuff that he's a collector of?  If it is, then it might be of concern.  If it's simply a small category in the catalogue of things that he's a collector of, then no news here.

I'd like to imagine what Tucker Carlson would say if we found out AOC collected Stalin memorabilia haha.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-08-2023, 02:58 PM)Dill Wrote: I'd be happy to get my hands on a Hitler pistol, or his "diary" and correspondence/manuscripts, or his art work. Any NAZI artwork in fact.

And I wouldn't turn down Nazi regalia either,* but I would not display it anywhere except a site which contextualizes them.

A fascination with Nazi regalia for its own sake, collector or no, raises questions--though I don't know if that is really the case from
the info given so far. No questions if along with that regalia, the guy collects French and British and Soviet stuff from the same era. 

But if his focus is just on that regalia, as it is with neo-Nazis, and he displays it in his home, then I don't regard him a "just a collector," like someone with a stamp or coin collection.

*In fact, I do have some NAZI artefacts, like copies of Der Adler (the Luftwaffe's military magazine) and a National-socialist jokebook (though I seem to have misplaced it). My interest is historical and political though; I'm not a "collector." 

See below:

(04-08-2023, 04:10 PM)pally Wrote: I like reading and learning about WWII history...on both sides.  One has to understand what was going on in Germany and Japan prior to the war and during the war years.  However, I wouldn't display Nazi memorabilia in my home ever.  Donate it to the WWII museum where it is displayed in context don't put it in your living room.  If he wants people to understand the men displayed in his dictator garden again a museum is the best location for his statutes not his private backyard.

His collecting is very off-putting especially when coupled with his extremist conservative politics

The House itself is Historical. It's his stuff, he can display it where ever he chooses. Shit, I guess he better get rid of his George Washington & Eisenhower stuff, Wouldn't want him to accidentally be accused of being an American<---- Those frekkers are the worst..  

(04-08-2023, 04:32 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Is that the only kind of stuff that he's a collector of?  If it is, then it might be of concern.  If it's simply a small category in the catalogue of things that he's a collector of, then no news here.

Digging, his whole house is basically a historical museum. Students, friends and so on often visit there.  
over 10k books, 5k manuscripts.

his statue garden consists of an UP hill and DOWN hill zones.
Up Hill contains statues of Churchill, Thatcher, Reagan and so on.
Down Hill contains: Hitler, Stalin, Lennin, Zedong and so on.

If you ask him why he has those guys in his collection, he will tell you that he doesn't want the younger generations to forget about the geopolitical struggles.

Media is trying hard to slander him just to get to Thomas as well.

I thought you guys liked non-biased shit? Or do you just keep swallowing the damn pills you are being fed to further your leftist agenda? You ***** about the right swallowing pills and parroting bs, but you are just as guilty of it.

[Dill]

(04-08-2023, 05:37 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Digging, his whole house is basically a historical museum. Students, friends and so on often visit there.  
over 10k books, 5k manuscripts.

his statue garden consists of an UP hill and DOWN hill zones.
Up Hill contains statues of Churchill, Thatcher, Reagan and so on.
Down Hill contains: Hitler, Stalin, Lennin, Zedong and so on.

If you ask him why he has those guys in his collection, he will tell you that he doesn't want the younger generations to forget about the geopolitical struggles.

Media is trying hard to slander him just to get to Thomas as well.

I thought you guys liked non-biased shit? Or do you just keep swallowing the damn pills you are being fed to further your leftist agenda? You ***** about the right swallowing pills and parroting bs, but you are just as guilty of it.

Well, let's review what was actually said before we jump on the "swallowing pills and parroting bs" biased band wagon.

And I wouldn't turn down Nazi regalia either,* but I would not display it anywhere except a site which contextualizes them.
A fascination with Nazi regalia for its own sake, collector or no, raises questions--though I don't know if that is really the case fromthe info given so far. No questions if along with that regalia, the guy collects French and British and Soviet stuff from the same era. 
But if his focus is just on that regalia, as it is with neo-Nazis, and he displays it in his home, then I don't regard him a "just a collector," like someone with a stamp or coin collection.

Sounds like I said no problem if the regalia is contextualized, with "French and British and Soviet stuff from the same era." Pally and that well known radical leftist Sunset Bengal gave pretty much the same qualifications about context. Right? How does this qualified judgment make us "just as guilty" of "swallowing pills"?

Just speaking for myself, I have never held up "non-biased shit" as an ideal. Rather, I've always said that the assumption there can be a non-biased perspective in politics (or most anything else) is not only impossible but misunderstands the process of accurate description and reasoned judgement.

Finally no one disputed the guy's right to "display what he chooses." The question was always about what those choices say about him. Yet somehow you get from questioning Hitler regalia, to questioning Washington and Eisenhower.  So a lot of straw men in your post, along with talk of "leftists" parroting BS and following an "agenda." Stuff that you WISH we'd said cuz that's easier to respond to.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-09-2023, 11:55 AM)Dill Wrote: Well, let's review what was actually said before we jump on the "swallowing pills and parroting bs" biased band wagon.

And I wouldn't turn down Nazi regalia either,* but I would not display it anywhere except a site which contextualizes them.
A fascination with Nazi regalia for its own sake, collector or no, raises questions--though I don't know if that is really the case fromthe info given so far. No questions if along with that regalia, the guy collects French and British and Soviet stuff from the same era. 
But if his focus is just on that regalia, as it is with neo-Nazis, and he displays it in his home, then I don't regard him a "just a collector," like someone with a stamp or coin collection.

Sounds like I said no problem if the regalia is contextualized, with "French and British and Soviet stuff from the same era." Pally and that well known radical leftist Sunset Bengal gave pretty much the same qualifications about context. Right? How does this qualified judgment make us "just as guilty" of "swallowing pills"?

Just speaking for myself, I have never held up "non-biased shit" as an ideal. Rather, I've always said that the assumption there can be a non-biased perspective in politics (or most anything else) is not only impossible but misunderstands the process of accurate description and reasoned judgement.

Finally no one disputed the guy's right to "display what he chooses." The question was always about what those choices say about him. Yet somehow you get from questioning Hitler regalia, to questioning Washington and Eisenhower.  So a lot of straw men in your post, along with talk of "leftists" parroting BS and following an "agenda." Stuff that you WISH we'd said cuz that's easier to respond to.

I already blew up that no laws/rules were broken by the Thomas/Crow friendship. 

So now  now someone goes all James Nares and go after COI in SC cases but still can't provide proof? if it's so easy to prove then there would be something there already (you don't think the media leftists wouldn't have found it by now?) Besides, i already proved he's incorrect on one of his general broad brush stroke claims by donating only to Reps. 

Then, you got 2 guys who seems intent on making HC out to be some Nazi Dictatorship lover just because out of the thousands of things he owns and displays, displaying a few Hitler things in his own personal home obviously makes any Right-Winger troubling? Which i pointed out is nothing more than a few pieces in a vast collection (which some of you understand that he collects more than just that).

So pointing out that HC's collection involves more than just "Hitler" regalia and you calling it a strawman arguement cancels his entire collection? 

And yes, someone did post that he shouldn't have those statues in his Dictator Garden in his own personal back yard.