Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
[OT] Communist Barbie Is A Casting-Call Puppet
45 views
Skip to first unread message
Ed Stasiak
Mar 9, 2019, 1:38:47 PM3/9/19
to
The Brains Behind AOC Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h5iv6sECGU
Related article:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/ocasio-cortezs-chief-of-staff-ran-1m-slush-fund-by-diverting-campaign-cash-to-his-own-companies
March 04, 2019
Two political action committees founded by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s top aide funneled over $1 million in political donations into two of his own private companies, according to a complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission on Monday.
The cash transfers from the PACs — overseen by Saikat Chakrabarti, the freshman socialist Democrat's chief of staff — run counter to her pledges to increase transparency and reduce the influence of "dark money" in politics.
Chakrabarti's companies appear to have been set up for the sole purpose of obscuring how the political donations were used.
The arrangement skirted reporting requirements and may have violated the $5,000 limit on contributions from federal PACs to candidates, according to the complaint filed by the National Legal and Policy Center, a government watchdog group.
Campaign finance attorneys described the arrangement as “really weird” and an indication "there’s something amiss." They said there was no way of telling where the political donations went — meaning they could have been pocketed or used by the company to pay for off-the-books campaign operations.
PACs are required to disclose how and when funds are spent, including for expenditures such as advertisements, fundraising emails, donations to candidates, and payments for events and to vendors.
The private companies to which Chakrabarti transferred the money from the PACs are not subject to these requirements.
The complaint names Ocasio-Cortez and Chakrabarti as respondents. It asks the FEC to investigate and audit the two PACs, saying they were engaged in an "an elaborate scheme to avoid proper disclosure of campaign expenditures."
Tom Anderson, director of the National Legal and Policy Center's Government Integrity Project, said: "It appears Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her associates ran an off-the-books operation to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, thus violating the foundation of all campaign finance laws: transparency."
Chakrabarti, 33, is a Harvard graduate and technology entrepreneur who became an organizer for Bernie Sanders during the socialist's 2016 presidential campaign.
He founded a PAC called Brand New Congress in 2016 and another called Justice Democrats in 2017, with the stated goal of helping elect progressive candidates to Congress. One of those candidates was Ocasio-Cortez, who, last November, age 29, became the youngest woman ever elected to Congress.
According to the Brand New Congress website, the PAC would build a "unified campaign" infrastructure including fundraising, organizing, rallies, and advertising progressive congressional candidates across the country could "plug into," saving the individual campaigns time and money.
"Our idea is really to run a single unified presidential-style campaign that is going to look a lot like the Bernie Sanders campaign,” said Chakrabarti in an interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow in May 2016. "The campaign infrastructure and fundraising is set aside from the campaigning."
In 2016 and 2017, Chakrabarti’s PACs raised about $3.3 million for the project, primarily from small donors. During this time, the committees transferred over $1 million to two shell companies controlled by Chakrabarti with names similar to one of the PACs, Brand New Campaign LLC and Brand New Congress LLC, according to federal election filings.
A few weeks after starting the Brand New Congress PAC, Chakrabarti formed one of the companies, Brand New Campaign LLC, in Delaware, using a registered agent service and mailbox-only address.
Over the next seven months, as small-dollar political donations poured into the PAC from progressives across the country, the committee transferred over $200,000, 82 percent of the contributions, to the company Brand New Campaign LLC. The payments were for "strategic consulting," according to federal election filings. They were sent to an apartment address listed for Chakrabarti in the Greenwich Village area of Manhattan.
In 2017, Brand New Congress PAC transferred another $240,000 to Brand New Congress LLC, also for "strategic consulting." Another PAC co-founded by Chakrabarti that year, Justice Democrats, transferred an additional $605,000 to Brand New Congress LLC in 2017.
Brand New Congress LLC does not appear to be registered in any state, according to state government records available online. It is unclear where or when it was incorporated.
Adav Noti, the senior director of the Campaign Legal Center and a former FEC lawyer, said the arrangement was highly unusual and seemed intended to obscure the destination of the funds.
"None of that makes any sense," said Noti. "I can't even begin to disentangle that. They're either confused or they're trying to conceal something."
Noti said it would be simpler to set up a consulting company and work directly with campaigns to provide services for a fee rather than creating a federal PAC and sending the money to a company controlled by the same person.
"It does seem like there's something amiss. I can only think of really two likely possibilities for this sort of pattern of disbursements," said Noti. "One is the scam PAC possibility — they're really just paying themselves and they’re concealing it by using the LLC. The other is that there’s actually another recipient, that the money is going to the LLC and then being disbursed in some other way that they want to conceal."
Bradley A. Smith, a former chairman of the FEC, said he has never seen such an arrangement. "It's a really weird situation," he said. "I see almost no way that you can do that without it being at least a reporting violation, quite likely a violation of the contribution limits. You might say from a campaign finance angle that the LLC was essentially operating as an unregistered committee."
Chakrabarti declined to comment on the FEC complaint or provide details about his companies’ financial activities. Corbin Trent, a spokesman for Ocasio-Cortez, declined to comment.
Zeynab Day, communications director for the Brand New Congress PAC, said Chakrabarti was not currently affiliated with the group and that it recently went through a "transition period." She referred questions about the LLC to Chakrabarti. “I’m unable to answer any questions about the LLC … I am not informed about them. We are not an affiliated group,” she said.
A spokesperson for Justice Democrats said he did not know why the PAC paid so much money to Chakrabarti’s LLCs. When asked what the Justice Democrats PAC does on a daily basis, he said, “It’s very clear what we do,” but declined to elaborate.
Chakrabarti founded Brand New Congress PAC, in April 2016. According to a statement released by Justice Democrats PAC last May, Chakrabarti "was the only controlling member" of the company Brand New Congress LLC and "took no salary." The statement added: "Saikat is lucky to have a small side business that generates him enough income that he is able to do all of this work as a volunteer."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h5iv6sECGU
Related article:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/ocasio-cortezs-chief-of-staff-ran-1m-slush-fund-by-diverting-campaign-cash-to-his-own-companies
March 04, 2019
Two political action committees founded by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s top aide funneled over $1 million in political donations into two of his own private companies, according to a complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission on Monday.
The cash transfers from the PACs — overseen by Saikat Chakrabarti, the freshman socialist Democrat's chief of staff — run counter to her pledges to increase transparency and reduce the influence of "dark money" in politics.
Chakrabarti's companies appear to have been set up for the sole purpose of obscuring how the political donations were used.
The arrangement skirted reporting requirements and may have violated the $5,000 limit on contributions from federal PACs to candidates, according to the complaint filed by the National Legal and Policy Center, a government watchdog group.
Campaign finance attorneys described the arrangement as “really weird” and an indication "there’s something amiss." They said there was no way of telling where the political donations went — meaning they could have been pocketed or used by the company to pay for off-the-books campaign operations.
PACs are required to disclose how and when funds are spent, including for expenditures such as advertisements, fundraising emails, donations to candidates, and payments for events and to vendors.
The private companies to which Chakrabarti transferred the money from the PACs are not subject to these requirements.
The complaint names Ocasio-Cortez and Chakrabarti as respondents. It asks the FEC to investigate and audit the two PACs, saying they were engaged in an "an elaborate scheme to avoid proper disclosure of campaign expenditures."
Tom Anderson, director of the National Legal and Policy Center's Government Integrity Project, said: "It appears Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her associates ran an off-the-books operation to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, thus violating the foundation of all campaign finance laws: transparency."
Chakrabarti, 33, is a Harvard graduate and technology entrepreneur who became an organizer for Bernie Sanders during the socialist's 2016 presidential campaign.
He founded a PAC called Brand New Congress in 2016 and another called Justice Democrats in 2017, with the stated goal of helping elect progressive candidates to Congress. One of those candidates was Ocasio-Cortez, who, last November, age 29, became the youngest woman ever elected to Congress.
According to the Brand New Congress website, the PAC would build a "unified campaign" infrastructure including fundraising, organizing, rallies, and advertising progressive congressional candidates across the country could "plug into," saving the individual campaigns time and money.
"Our idea is really to run a single unified presidential-style campaign that is going to look a lot like the Bernie Sanders campaign,” said Chakrabarti in an interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow in May 2016. "The campaign infrastructure and fundraising is set aside from the campaigning."
In 2016 and 2017, Chakrabarti’s PACs raised about $3.3 million for the project, primarily from small donors. During this time, the committees transferred over $1 million to two shell companies controlled by Chakrabarti with names similar to one of the PACs, Brand New Campaign LLC and Brand New Congress LLC, according to federal election filings.
A few weeks after starting the Brand New Congress PAC, Chakrabarti formed one of the companies, Brand New Campaign LLC, in Delaware, using a registered agent service and mailbox-only address.
Over the next seven months, as small-dollar political donations poured into the PAC from progressives across the country, the committee transferred over $200,000, 82 percent of the contributions, to the company Brand New Campaign LLC. The payments were for "strategic consulting," according to federal election filings. They were sent to an apartment address listed for Chakrabarti in the Greenwich Village area of Manhattan.
In 2017, Brand New Congress PAC transferred another $240,000 to Brand New Congress LLC, also for "strategic consulting." Another PAC co-founded by Chakrabarti that year, Justice Democrats, transferred an additional $605,000 to Brand New Congress LLC in 2017.
Brand New Congress LLC does not appear to be registered in any state, according to state government records available online. It is unclear where or when it was incorporated.
Adav Noti, the senior director of the Campaign Legal Center and a former FEC lawyer, said the arrangement was highly unusual and seemed intended to obscure the destination of the funds.
"None of that makes any sense," said Noti. "I can't even begin to disentangle that. They're either confused or they're trying to conceal something."
Noti said it would be simpler to set up a consulting company and work directly with campaigns to provide services for a fee rather than creating a federal PAC and sending the money to a company controlled by the same person.
"It does seem like there's something amiss. I can only think of really two likely possibilities for this sort of pattern of disbursements," said Noti. "One is the scam PAC possibility — they're really just paying themselves and they’re concealing it by using the LLC. The other is that there’s actually another recipient, that the money is going to the LLC and then being disbursed in some other way that they want to conceal."
Bradley A. Smith, a former chairman of the FEC, said he has never seen such an arrangement. "It's a really weird situation," he said. "I see almost no way that you can do that without it being at least a reporting violation, quite likely a violation of the contribution limits. You might say from a campaign finance angle that the LLC was essentially operating as an unregistered committee."
Chakrabarti declined to comment on the FEC complaint or provide details about his companies’ financial activities. Corbin Trent, a spokesman for Ocasio-Cortez, declined to comment.
Zeynab Day, communications director for the Brand New Congress PAC, said Chakrabarti was not currently affiliated with the group and that it recently went through a "transition period." She referred questions about the LLC to Chakrabarti. “I’m unable to answer any questions about the LLC … I am not informed about them. We are not an affiliated group,” she said.
A spokesperson for Justice Democrats said he did not know why the PAC paid so much money to Chakrabarti’s LLCs. When asked what the Justice Democrats PAC does on a daily basis, he said, “It’s very clear what we do,” but declined to elaborate.
Chakrabarti founded Brand New Congress PAC, in April 2016. According to a statement released by Justice Democrats PAC last May, Chakrabarti "was the only controlling member" of the company Brand New Congress LLC and "took no salary." The statement added: "Saikat is lucky to have a small side business that generates him enough income that he is able to do all of this work as a volunteer."
moviePig
Mar 9, 2019, 2:58:30 PM3/9/19
to
Washington Examiner:
https://www.snopes.com/news/2019/03/07/aoc-chief-of-staff/
And, isn't Bradley A. Smith a vociferous champion of bought politics?
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
BTR1701
Mar 9, 2019, 3:25:39 PM3/9/19
to
In article <DVUgE.39959$dq7....@fx35.iad>,
moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> Meanwhile, from a source generally regarded as less biased than the
> Washington Examiner:
Or more accurately, just biased in a different way.
> Meanwhile, from a source generally regarded as less biased than the
> Washington Examiner:
moviePig
Mar 9, 2019, 4:01:58 PM3/9/19
to
RichA
Mar 9, 2019, 8:41:58 PM3/9/19
to
moviePig
Mar 9, 2019, 10:43:06 PM3/9/19
to
FPP
Mar 10, 2019, 3:55:54 AM3/10/19
to
On 3/9/19 4:01 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 3/9/2019 3:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <DVUgE.39959$dq7....@fx35.iad>,
>> moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>> Meanwhile, from a source generally regarded as less biased than the
>>> Washington Examiner:
>>
>> Or more accurately, just biased in a different way.
>
> "All truth is relative" -- the last refuge of the insupportable.
"Truth isn't Truth." -- the current refuge of the insupportable.
> On 3/9/2019 3:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <DVUgE.39959$dq7....@fx35.iad>,
>> moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>> Meanwhile, from a source generally regarded as less biased than the
>>> Washington Examiner:
>>
>> Or more accurately, just biased in a different way.
>
> "All truth is relative" -- the last refuge of the insupportable.
--
"An immigrant who achieves the American Dream didn’t steal anything from
you or your family. They just wanted it more than you and worked harder
than you. And they did it with all the odds stacked against them. If
your life sucks lemons, a wall isn’t going to turn it to lemonade."
BTR1701
Mar 10, 2019, 5:29:53 AM3/10/19
to
FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/9/19 4:01 PM, moviePig wrote:
>> On 3/9/2019 3:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <DVUgE.39959$dq7....@fx35.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>> Meanwhile, from a source generally regarded as less biased than the
>>>> Washington Examiner:
>>>
>>> Or more accurately, just biased in a different way.
>>
>> "All truth is relative" -- the last refuge of the insupportable.
>
> "Truth isn't Truth." -- the current refuge of the insupportable.
"Member of a party" doesn't mean "member of a party." --FPP
> On 3/9/19 4:01 PM, moviePig wrote:
>> On 3/9/2019 3:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <DVUgE.39959$dq7....@fx35.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>> Meanwhile, from a source generally regarded as less biased than the
>>>> Washington Examiner:
>>>
>>> Or more accurately, just biased in a different way.
>>
>> "All truth is relative" -- the last refuge of the insupportable.
>
> "Truth isn't Truth." -- the current refuge of the insupportable.
FPP
Mar 10, 2019, 8:44:27 AM3/10/19
to
moviePig
Mar 10, 2019, 10:30:43 AM3/10/19
to
On 3/10/2019 3:55 AM, FPP wrote:
> On 3/9/19 4:01 PM, moviePig wrote:
>> On 3/9/2019 3:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <DVUgE.39959$dq7....@fx35.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>> Meanwhile, from a source generally regarded as less biased than the
>>>> Washington Examiner:
>>>
>>> Or more accurately, just biased in a different way.
>>
>> "All truth is relative" -- the last refuge of the insupportable.
>
> "Truth isn't Truth." -- the current refuge of the insupportable.
"FakeNews" -- the once and future refuge etc.
> On 3/9/19 4:01 PM, moviePig wrote:
>> On 3/9/2019 3:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <DVUgE.39959$dq7....@fx35.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>> Meanwhile, from a source generally regarded as less biased than the
>>>> Washington Examiner:
>>>
>>> Or more accurately, just biased in a different way.
>>
>> "All truth is relative" -- the last refuge of the insupportable.
>
> "Truth isn't Truth." -- the current refuge of the insupportable.
BTR1701
Mar 10, 2019, 1:48:07 PM3/10/19
to
In article <q630r8$rl0$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 3/10/19 5:29 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 3/9/19 4:01 PM, moviePig wrote:
> >>> On 3/9/2019 3:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>> In article <DVUgE.39959$dq7....@fx35.iad>,
> >>>> moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Meanwhile, from a source generally regarded as less biased than the
> >>>>> Washington Examiner:
> >>>>
> >>>> Or more accurately, just biased in a different way.
> >>>
> >>> "All truth is relative" -- the last refuge of the insupportable.
> >>
> >> "Truth isn't Truth." -- the current refuge of the insupportable.
> >
> > "Member of a party" doesn't mean "member of a party." --FPP
>
> I took my direction from Thanny "a Communist isn't a Communist" standard.
Which I never said, unlike your "member of a party" doesn't mean "member
of a party".
wrote:
> On 3/10/19 5:29 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 3/9/19 4:01 PM, moviePig wrote:
> >>> On 3/9/2019 3:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>> In article <DVUgE.39959$dq7....@fx35.iad>,
> >>>> moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Meanwhile, from a source generally regarded as less biased than the
> >>>>> Washington Examiner:
> >>>>
> >>>> Or more accurately, just biased in a different way.
> >>>
> >>> "All truth is relative" -- the last refuge of the insupportable.
> >>
> >> "Truth isn't Truth." -- the current refuge of the insupportable.
> >
> > "Member of a party" doesn't mean "member of a party." --FPP
>
> I took my direction from Thanny "a Communist isn't a Communist" standard.
of a party".
trotsky
Mar 10, 2019, 4:05:45 PM3/10/19
to
Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> Wrote in message:
> The Brains Behind AOC Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h5iv6sECGURelated article:https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/ocasio-cortezs-chief-of-staff-ran-1m-slush-fund-by-diverting-campaign-cash-to-his-own-companiesMarch 04, 2019Two political action committees founded by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?s top aide funneled over $1 million in political donations into two of his own private companies, according to a complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission on Monday.The cash transfers from the PACs ? overseen by Saikat Chakrabarti, the freshman socialist Democrat's chief of staff ? run counter to her pledges to increase transparency and reduce the influence of "dark money" in politics.Chakrabarti's companies appear to have been set up for the sole purpose of obscuring how the political donations were used. The arrangement skirted reporting requirements and may have violated the $5,000 limit on contributions from federal PACs to candidates, according to the complaint filed by the National Legal and Policy Center, a government watchdog group.Campaign finance attorneys described the arrangement as ?really weird? and an indication "there?s something amiss." They said there was no way of telling where the political donations went ? meaning they could have been pocketed or used by the company to pay for off-the-books campaign operations.PACs are required to disclose how and when funds are spent, including for expenditures such as advertisements, fundraising emails, donations to candidates, and payments for events and to vendors.The private companies to which Chakrabarti transferred the money from the PACs are not subject to these requirements.The complaint names Ocasio-Cortez and Chakrabarti as respondents. It asks the FEC to investigate and audit the two PACs, saying they were engaged in an "an elaborate scheme to avoid proper disclosure of campaign expenditures."Tom Anderson, director of the National Legal and Policy Center's Government Integrity Project, said: "It appears Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her associates ran an off-the-books operation to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, thus violating the foundation of all campaign finance laws: transparency."Chakrabarti, 33, is a Harvard graduate and technology entrepreneur who became an organizer for Bernie Sanders during the socialist's 2016 presidential campaign.He founded a PAC called Brand New Congress in 2016 and another called Justice Democrats in 2017, with the stated goal of helping elect progressive candidates to Congress. One of those candidates was Ocasio-Cortez, who, last November, age 29, became the youngest woman ever elected to Congress.According to the Brand New Congress website, the PAC would build a "unified campaign" infrastructure including fundraising, organizing, rallies, and advertising progressive congressional candidates across the country could "plug into," saving the individual campaigns time and money."Our idea is really to run a single unified presidential-style campaign that is going to look a lot like the Bernie Sanders campaign,? said Chakrabarti in an interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow in May 2016. "The campaign infrastructure and fundraising is set aside from the campaigning."In 2016 and 2017, Chakrabarti?s PACs raised about $3.3 million for the project, primarily from small donors. During this time, the committees transferred over $1 million to two shell companies controlled by Chakrabarti with names similar to one of the PACs, Brand New Campaign LLC and Brand New Congress LLC, according to federal election filings. A few weeks after starting the Brand New Congress PAC, Chakrabarti formed one of the companies, Brand New Campaign LLC, in Delaware, using a registered agent service and mailbox-only address.Over the next seven months, as small-dollar political donations poured into the PAC from progressives across the country, the committee transferred over $200,000, 82 percent of the contributions, to the company Brand New Campaign LLC. The payments were for "strategic consulting," according to federal election filings. They were sent to an apartment address listed for Chakrabarti in the Greenwich Village area of Manhattan.In 2017, Brand New Congress PAC transferred another $240,000 to Brand New Congress LLC, also for "strategic consulting." Another PAC co-founded by Chakrabarti that year, Justice Democrats, transferred an additional $605,000 to Brand New Congress LLC in 2017.Brand New Congress LLC does not appear to be registered in any state, according to state government records available online. It is unclear where or when it was incorporated.Adav Noti, the senior director of the Campaign Legal Center and a former FEC lawyer, said the arrangement was highly unusual and seemed intended to obscure the destination of the funds."None of that makes any sense," said Noti. "I can't even begin to disentangle that. They're either confused or they're trying to conceal something." Noti said it would be simpler to set up a consulting company and work directly with campaigns to provide services for a fee rather than creating a federal PAC and sending the money to a company controlled by the same person."It does seem like there's something amiss. I can only think of really two likely possibilities for this sort of pattern of disbursements," said Noti. "One is the scam PAC possibility ? they're really just paying themselves and they?re concealing it by using the LLC. The other is that there?s actually another recipient, that the money is going to the LLC and then being disbursed in some other way that they want to conceal." Bradley A. Smith, a former chairman of the FEC, said he has never seen such an arrangement. "It's a really weird situation," he said. "I see almost no way that you can do that without it being at least a reporting violation, quite likely a violation of the contribution limits. You might say from a campaign finance angle that the LLC was essentially operating as an unregistered committee."Chakrabarti declined to comment on the FEC complaint or provide details about his companies? financial activities. Corbin Trent, a spokesman for Ocasio-Cortez, declined to comment.Zeynab Day, commu
--
> The Brains Behind AOC Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h5iv6sECGURelated article:https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/ocasio-cortezs-chief-of-staff-ran-1m-slush-fund-by-diverting-campaign-cash-to-his-own-companiesMarch 04, 2019Two political action committees founded by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?s top aide funneled over $1 million in political donations into two of his own private companies, according to a complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission on Monday.The cash transfers from the PACs ? overseen by Saikat Chakrabarti, the freshman socialist Democrat's chief of staff ? run counter to her pledges to increase transparency and reduce the influence of "dark money" in politics.Chakrabarti's companies appear to have been set up for the sole purpose of obscuring how the political donations were used. The arrangement skirted reporting requirements and may have violated the $5,000 limit on contributions from federal PACs to candidates, according to the complaint filed by the National Legal and Policy Center, a government watchdog group.Campaign finance attorneys described the arrangement as ?really weird? and an indication "there?s something amiss." They said there was no way of telling where the political donations went ? meaning they could have been pocketed or used by the company to pay for off-the-books campaign operations.PACs are required to disclose how and when funds are spent, including for expenditures such as advertisements, fundraising emails, donations to candidates, and payments for events and to vendors.The private companies to which Chakrabarti transferred the money from the PACs are not subject to these requirements.The complaint names Ocasio-Cortez and Chakrabarti as respondents. It asks the FEC to investigate and audit the two PACs, saying they were engaged in an "an elaborate scheme to avoid proper disclosure of campaign expenditures."Tom Anderson, director of the National Legal and Policy Center's Government Integrity Project, said: "It appears Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her associates ran an off-the-books operation to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, thus violating the foundation of all campaign finance laws: transparency."Chakrabarti, 33, is a Harvard graduate and technology entrepreneur who became an organizer for Bernie Sanders during the socialist's 2016 presidential campaign.He founded a PAC called Brand New Congress in 2016 and another called Justice Democrats in 2017, with the stated goal of helping elect progressive candidates to Congress. One of those candidates was Ocasio-Cortez, who, last November, age 29, became the youngest woman ever elected to Congress.According to the Brand New Congress website, the PAC would build a "unified campaign" infrastructure including fundraising, organizing, rallies, and advertising progressive congressional candidates across the country could "plug into," saving the individual campaigns time and money."Our idea is really to run a single unified presidential-style campaign that is going to look a lot like the Bernie Sanders campaign,? said Chakrabarti in an interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow in May 2016. "The campaign infrastructure and fundraising is set aside from the campaigning."In 2016 and 2017, Chakrabarti?s PACs raised about $3.3 million for the project, primarily from small donors. During this time, the committees transferred over $1 million to two shell companies controlled by Chakrabarti with names similar to one of the PACs, Brand New Campaign LLC and Brand New Congress LLC, according to federal election filings. A few weeks after starting the Brand New Congress PAC, Chakrabarti formed one of the companies, Brand New Campaign LLC, in Delaware, using a registered agent service and mailbox-only address.Over the next seven months, as small-dollar political donations poured into the PAC from progressives across the country, the committee transferred over $200,000, 82 percent of the contributions, to the company Brand New Campaign LLC. The payments were for "strategic consulting," according to federal election filings. They were sent to an apartment address listed for Chakrabarti in the Greenwich Village area of Manhattan.In 2017, Brand New Congress PAC transferred another $240,000 to Brand New Congress LLC, also for "strategic consulting." Another PAC co-founded by Chakrabarti that year, Justice Democrats, transferred an additional $605,000 to Brand New Congress LLC in 2017.Brand New Congress LLC does not appear to be registered in any state, according to state government records available online. It is unclear where or when it was incorporated.Adav Noti, the senior director of the Campaign Legal Center and a former FEC lawyer, said the arrangement was highly unusual and seemed intended to obscure the destination of the funds."None of that makes any sense," said Noti. "I can't even begin to disentangle that. They're either confused or they're trying to conceal something." Noti said it would be simpler to set up a consulting company and work directly with campaigns to provide services for a fee rather than creating a federal PAC and sending the money to a company controlled by the same person."It does seem like there's something amiss. I can only think of really two likely possibilities for this sort of pattern of disbursements," said Noti. "One is the scam PAC possibility ? they're really just paying themselves and they?re concealing it by using the LLC. The other is that there?s actually another recipient, that the money is going to the LLC and then being disbursed in some other way that they want to conceal." Bradley A. Smith, a former chairman of the FEC, said he has never seen such an arrangement. "It's a really weird situation," he said. "I see almost no way that you can do that without it being at least a reporting violation, quite likely a violation of the contribution limits. You might say from a campaign finance angle that the LLC was essentially operating as an unregistered committee."Chakrabarti declined to comment on the FEC complaint or provide details about his companies? financial activities. Corbin Trent, a spokesman for Ocasio-Cortez, declined to comment.Zeynab Day, commu
--
trotsky
Mar 10, 2019, 4:08:55 PM3/10/19
to
It's so weird how both you and Twinkles are both posting about her.
FPP
Mar 10, 2019, 5:12:27 PM3/10/19
to
If one can be called a Communist without having any ties to the
Communist party, then one can be called a Republican without having any
ties to the Republican party.
You want it both ways... and I'm not letting you have it.
FPP
Mar 10, 2019, 5:13:03 PM3/10/19
to
On 3/10/19 10:30 AM, moviePig wrote:
> On 3/10/2019 3:55 AM, FPP wrote:
>> On 3/9/19 4:01 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>> On 3/9/2019 3:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> In article <DVUgE.39959$dq7....@fx35.iad>,
>>>> moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>> Meanwhile, from a source generally regarded as less biased than the
>>>>> Washington Examiner:
>>>>
>>>> Or more accurately, just biased in a different way.
>>>
>>> "All truth is relative" -- the last refuge of the insupportable.
>>
>> "Truth isn't Truth." -- the current refuge of the insupportable.
>
> "FakeNews" -- the once and future refuge etc.
That's literally an example of double-speak.
> On 3/10/2019 3:55 AM, FPP wrote:
>> On 3/9/19 4:01 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>> On 3/9/2019 3:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> In article <DVUgE.39959$dq7....@fx35.iad>,
>>>> moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>> Meanwhile, from a source generally regarded as less biased than the
>>>>> Washington Examiner:
>>>>
>>>> Or more accurately, just biased in a different way.
>>>
>>> "All truth is relative" -- the last refuge of the insupportable.
>>
>> "Truth isn't Truth." -- the current refuge of the insupportable.
>
> "FakeNews" -- the once and future refuge etc.
BTR1701
Mar 10, 2019, 6:06:54 PM3/10/19
to
In article <q63ujp$p0$2...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/10/19 2:48 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <q630r8$rl0$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/10/19 5:29 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 3/9/19 4:01 PM, moviePig wrote:
> >>>>> On 3/9/2019 3:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>> In article <DVUgE.39959$dq7....@fx35.iad>,
> >>>>>> moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Meanwhile, from a source generally regarded as less biased than the
> >>>>>>> Washington Examiner:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Or more accurately, just biased in a different way.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "All truth is relative" -- the last refuge of the insupportable.
> >>>>
> >>>> "Truth isn't Truth." -- the current refuge of the insupportable.
> >>>
> >>> "Member of a party" doesn't mean "member of a party." --FPP
> >>
> >> I took my direction from Thanny "a Communist isn't a Communist" standard.
> >
> > Which I never said, unlike your "member of a party" doesn't mean "member
> > of a party".
>
> It's a natural progression.
LOL! Quick, catch up to those goalposts! They're progressing naturally!
> On 3/10/19 2:48 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <q630r8$rl0$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/10/19 5:29 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 3/9/19 4:01 PM, moviePig wrote:
> >>>>> On 3/9/2019 3:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>> In article <DVUgE.39959$dq7....@fx35.iad>,
> >>>>>> moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Meanwhile, from a source generally regarded as less biased than the
> >>>>>>> Washington Examiner:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Or more accurately, just biased in a different way.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "All truth is relative" -- the last refuge of the insupportable.
> >>>>
> >>>> "Truth isn't Truth." -- the current refuge of the insupportable.
> >>>
> >>> "Member of a party" doesn't mean "member of a party." --FPP
> >>
> >> I took my direction from Thanny "a Communist isn't a Communist" standard.
> >
> > Which I never said, unlike your "member of a party" doesn't mean "member
> > of a party".
>
> It's a natural progression.
FPP
Mar 10, 2019, 6:33:35 PM3/10/19
to
Communist party.
I call you a Republican despite not being a member of the Republican party.
Can I make the comparison any simpler?
You want a double-standard, wherein one person can be something without
an official affiliation, but another can't. You're not going to get it
from me.
BTR1701
Mar 10, 2019, 7:39:38 PM3/10/19
to
In article <q643bs$s1n$2...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
No, I call her a collectivist now. Been that way for several weeks.
You've been told this multiple times now but refuse to acknowledge it
because it torpedoes what you apparently believe to be a 'get out of
jail' card for your continual lies.
You've been told this multiple times now but refuse to acknowledge it
because it torpedoes what you apparently believe to be a 'get out of
jail' card for your continual lies.
FPP
Mar 11, 2019, 6:10:56 AM3/11/19
to
now.
NoBody
Mar 11, 2019, 7:05:07 AM3/11/19
to
BTR1701
Mar 11, 2019, 10:53:53 AM3/11/19
to
In article <q65c7e$qmh$2...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> > jail' card for your own continual lies.
describing actual governmental and economic systems, while yours is just
a made-up slur. But knock yourself out. Whatever makes you feel like
you've won on Usenet.
>
> Then I'll just start calling you a Rapepublcian, then...
The difference, of course, being that my word is an actual word,
> Then I'll just start calling you a Rapepublcian, then...
describing actual governmental and economic systems, while yours is just
a made-up slur. But knock yourself out. Whatever makes you feel like
you've won on Usenet.
moviePig
Mar 11, 2019, 1:01:11 PM3/11/19
to
BTR1701
Mar 11, 2019, 2:20:49 PM3/11/19
to
Leftists, collectivists, and 'progressives' constantly use 'capitalist' as
an insult but I'm hardly insulted when called a capitalist despite their
attempts to make me feel ashamed of it.
Likewise, if Che Ocasio is a true believer in her socialist utopia, then
she should feel proud, not slurred, to be labeled a collectivist.
moviePig
Mar 11, 2019, 3:12:13 PM3/11/19
to
it's a slur only in an anti-capitalist auditorium. However 'socialism'
and 'collectivism' are different modalities -- with 'collectivism'
additionally adsorbing much of the (often uninformed) knee-jerk stigma
accorded 'communism'. That leans 'collectivist' toward the openly coded
slur I suspect you always intended. (See 'fellow travelers'.)
BTR1701
Mar 11, 2019, 3:45:44 PM3/11/19
to
> it's a slur only in an anti-capitalist auditorium.
freedom and liberty over the power of the state.
However 'socialism'
> and 'collectivism' are different modalities
Stalinism, Leninism, etc.
It's an umbrella term that covers many individual flavors, much like 'dog'
describes various breeds of canis familiaris-- Rottweilers, chihuahuas,
Great Danes, and beagles.
> with 'collectivism' additionally adsorbing much of the (often uninformed)
> knee-jerk stigma accorded 'communism'.
> That leans 'collectivist' toward the openly coded
> slur I suspect you always intended.
which you believe is a winner because it forces your adversary into the
untenable position of proving a negative. How does one prove one's words
*aren't* a pig siren or a 'code' when so accused? It's impossible, so of
course 'progressives' have gleefully adopted it as a go-to tactic.
> See 'fellow travelers'.
There's nothing 'coded' about that. It's a direct reference to people who
share the sympathies and viewpoints.
moviePig
Mar 11, 2019, 4:24:11 PM3/11/19
to
>> with 'collectivism' additionally adsorbing much of the (often uninformed)
>> knee-jerk stigma accorded 'communism'.
>
> Oh, please. Now you're just making things up.
think I've imagined that 'communist' could almost have its own Godwin
law, and that 'collectivist' is colloquially a loose synonym for it.
>> That leans 'collectivist' toward the openly coded
>> slur I suspect you always intended.
>
> Fuck off with your code words. You constantly resort to this lame trope,
> which you believe is a winner because it forces your adversary into the
> untenable position of proving a negative. How does one prove one's words
> *aren't* a pig siren or a 'code' when so accused? It's impossible, so of
> course 'progressives' have gleefully adopted it as a go-to tactic.
would accept being called a 'collectivist'. Or if not, why not.
>> See 'fellow travelers'.
>
> There's nothing 'coded' about that. It's a direct reference to people who
> share the sympathies and viewpoints.
The phrase originally applied to people in the early days of the
Soviet Union who supported the Russian revolution and the Communist
Party but were not members. Communism was popular among many American
intellectuals during the 1930s and '40s, but following World War II,
this country's attitude toward the Soviets changed in light of Stalin's
purges and revelations of espionage. Accusations that Soviet
sympathizers had infiltrated our government and military led to
congressional investigations, and the phrase “fellow traveler” was used
to label those accused of “un-American” activities or even just
“Communist dupes.”
Or, maybe you weren't aware of that?
Or, maybe you thought no one else was?
FPP
Mar 11, 2019, 6:19:48 PM3/11/19
to
https://www.pinterest.com/ginmarie11/lets-just-call-them-rapepublicans/
All words are made up words, counselor.
FPP
Mar 11, 2019, 6:20:59 PM3/11/19
to
On 3/11/19 3:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> Fuck off with your code words.
Most ironic thing said in this thread.
> Fuck off with your code words.
BTR1701
Mar 21, 2019, 3:59:58 AM3/21/19
to
In article <BtzhE.115316$v55....@fx36.iad>,
> >> with 'collectivism' additionally adsorbing much of the (often
> >> uninformed) knee-jerk stigma accorded 'communism'.
> >
> > Oh, please. Now you're just making things up.
>
> I'm not versed enough in this stuff to "make things up".
That's never stopped you before.
> Yet I don't think I've imagined that 'communist' could almost have its
> own Godwin law
LOL! it doesn't, but that apparently isn't going to stop you from
pretending it does because you can 'imagine' it.
And even that ridiculous Godwin 'law' isn't actually a law in any
relevant sense of the word. Just because some random person said
something pithy on the internet once upon a time and called it a 'law'
doesn't mean it really is one.
> 'collectivist' is colloquially a loose synonym for it.
Well, now you're on notice that's not the way I use the word, regardless
of your hyperactive imagination. I use it as a general descriptor for
all the soul-sucking, state-worshipping, individual liberty-robbing
authoritarian forms of government known variously as communism,
Stalinism, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, etc.
> >> That leans 'collectivist' toward the openly coded
> >> slur I suspect you always intended.
> >
> > Fuck off with your code words. You constantly resort to this lame trope,
> > which you believe is a winner because it forces your adversary into the
> > untenable position of proving a negative. How does one prove one's words
> > *aren't* a pig siren or a 'code' when so accused? It's impossible, so of
> > course 'progressives' have gleefully adopted it as a go-to tactic.
>
> You don't have to prove any negatives.
LOL!
> Just claim that you think AOC would accept being called a 'collectivist'.
> Or if not, why not.
Probably not. Because she's not bright enough to know what it is.
> >> See 'fellow travelers'.
> >
> > There's nothing 'coded' about that. It's a direct reference to people
> > who share the same sympathies and viewpoints.
meaning rather than one you've imagined up.
> The phrase originally applied to people in the early days of the
> Soviet Union who supported the Russian revolution and the Communist
> Party but were not members. Communism was popular among many American
> intellectuals during the 1930s and '40s, but following World War II,
> this country's attitude toward the Soviets changed in light of Stalin's
> purges and revelations of espionage. Accusations that Soviet
> sympathizers had infiltrated our government and military led to
> congressional investigations, and the phrase "fellow traveler" was used
> to label those accused of "un-American" activities or even just
> "Communist dupes".
Right. So basically just what I said: People who share the same
sympathies and viewpoints.
moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> On 3/11/2019 3:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >> On 3/11/2019 2:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >> However 'socialism' and 'collectivism' are different modalities
> >
> > Collectivism encompasses socialism. Along with communism, Marxism,
> > Stalinism, Leninism, etc.
> >
> > It's an umbrella term that covers many individual flavors, much like
> > 'dog' describes various breeds of canis familiaris-- Rottweilers,
> > chihuahuas, Great Danes, and beagles.
>
> When I google 'collectivism vs socialism', I don't see that consensus.
I'm not responsible for the accuracy of your search results.
> On 3/11/2019 3:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >> On 3/11/2019 2:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >> However 'socialism' and 'collectivism' are different modalities
> >
> > Collectivism encompasses socialism. Along with communism, Marxism,
> > Stalinism, Leninism, etc.
> >
> > It's an umbrella term that covers many individual flavors, much like
> > 'dog' describes various breeds of canis familiaris-- Rottweilers,
> > chihuahuas, Great Danes, and beagles.
>
> When I google 'collectivism vs socialism', I don't see that consensus.
> >> with 'collectivism' additionally adsorbing much of the (often
> >> uninformed) knee-jerk stigma accorded 'communism'.
> >
> > Oh, please. Now you're just making things up.
>
> I'm not versed enough in this stuff to "make things up".
> Yet I don't think I've imagined that 'communist' could almost have its
> own Godwin law
pretending it does because you can 'imagine' it.
And even that ridiculous Godwin 'law' isn't actually a law in any
relevant sense of the word. Just because some random person said
something pithy on the internet once upon a time and called it a 'law'
doesn't mean it really is one.
> 'collectivist' is colloquially a loose synonym for it.
of your hyperactive imagination. I use it as a general descriptor for
all the soul-sucking, state-worshipping, individual liberty-robbing
authoritarian forms of government known variously as communism,
Stalinism, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, etc.
> >> That leans 'collectivist' toward the openly coded
> >> slur I suspect you always intended.
> >
> > Fuck off with your code words. You constantly resort to this lame trope,
> > which you believe is a winner because it forces your adversary into the
> > untenable position of proving a negative. How does one prove one's words
> > *aren't* a pig siren or a 'code' when so accused? It's impossible, so of
> > course 'progressives' have gleefully adopted it as a go-to tactic.
>
> You don't have to prove any negatives.
> Just claim that you think AOC would accept being called a 'collectivist'.
> Or if not, why not.
> >> See 'fellow travelers'.
> >
> > There's nothing 'coded' about that. It's a direct reference to people
>
> That's its direct definition.
Yes, heaven forfend we be allowed to use a term based on its actual
> That's its direct definition.
meaning rather than one you've imagined up.
> The phrase originally applied to people in the early days of the
> Soviet Union who supported the Russian revolution and the Communist
> Party but were not members. Communism was popular among many American
> intellectuals during the 1930s and '40s, but following World War II,
> this country's attitude toward the Soviets changed in light of Stalin's
> purges and revelations of espionage. Accusations that Soviet
> sympathizers had infiltrated our government and military led to
> congressional investigations, and the phrase "fellow traveler" was used
> to label those accused of "un-American" activities or even just
> "Communist dupes".
sympathies and viewpoints.
trotsky
Mar 21, 2019, 8:59:45 AM3/21/19
to
saying much.
moviePig
Mar 21, 2019, 10:08:08 AM3/21/19
to
>>>> See 'fellow travelers'.
>>>
>>> There's nothing 'coded' about that. It's a direct reference to people
>>> who share the same sympathies and viewpoints.
>>
>> That's its direct definition.
>
> Yes, heaven forfend we be allowed to use a term based on its actual
> meaning rather than one you've imagined up.
>
>> The phrase originally applied to people in the early days of the
>> Soviet Union who supported the Russian revolution and the Communist
>> Party but were not members. Communism was popular among many American
>> intellectuals during the 1930s and '40s, but following World War II,
>> this country's attitude toward the Soviets changed in light of Stalin's
>> purges and revelations of espionage. Accusations that Soviet
>> sympathizers had infiltrated our government and military led to
>> congressional investigations, and the phrase "fellow traveler" was used
>> to label those accused of "un-American" activities or even just
>> "Communist dupes".
>
> Right. So basically just what I said: People who share the same
> sympathies and viewpoints.
BTR1701
Mar 21, 2019, 10:43:23 AM3/21/19
to
In article <8VMkE.183650$UO4....@fx38.iad>,
If you think being aligned with collectivists is pejorative, then
perhaps you should reevaluate your beliefs.
perhaps you should reevaluate your beliefs.
Adam H. Kerman
Mar 21, 2019, 11:08:02 AM3/21/19
to
was about Usenet. Usenet is not a subset of the Internet. Usenet is
older than Web-based social media, but it's not older than computer
bulletin boards. Prior to NNTP, Usenet traffic didn't even use the
Internet, but UUCP, or tapes could by physically transferred or even
mailed.
This is the law, the term "law" being an observation about the nature of
discussions and not a statute passed by a legislative body.
As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a
comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
- Mike Godwin, 1990
A common corollary to Godwin's Law is that, once Nazis are brought up,
rational discussion of the underlying topic has ended and the first
antagonist to invoke a Nazi comparison has lost. There's another
corollary about "intentional Godwining", trying to force one's opponent
into making the Nazi comparison, but that's not thought to end rational
debate. This one is called Quirk's Exception to Godwin.
As usual, moviePig is being an idiot, for if the discussion is ACTUALLY about
a comparison of modern political ideas to policies under Communism, that
is in no way comparable to Godwin's Law, but the discussion itself.
Somehow, FPP and various seamus socks have discovered all sorts ways to
instantly turn a discussion into dreck by making false equivalencies to
anything other than Nazis. If you like, we can name that corollary after
you.
moviePig
Mar 21, 2019, 11:20:49 AM3/21/19
to
yeah, I'd say that 'collectivism' enjoys much of the unexamined stigma
accorded to 'communism'. (In fact, iirc, I *have* said it.)
BTR1701
Mar 21, 2019, 2:00:12 PM3/21/19
to
> yeah, I'd say that 'collectivism' enjoys much of the unexamined stigma
> accorded to 'communism'. (In fact, iirc, I *have* said it.)
Whatever stigma under which communism labors is neither unexamined nor
> accorded to 'communism'. (In fact, iirc, I *have* said it.)
undeserved.
BTR1701
Mar 21, 2019, 2:00:13 PM3/21/19
to
Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>> moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>>> Yet I don't think I've imagined that 'communist' could almost have its
>>> own Godwin law
>
>> LOL! it doesn't, but that apparently isn't going to stop you from
>> pretending it does because you can 'imagine' it.
>
>> And even that ridiculous Godwin 'law' isn't actually a law in any
>> relevant sense of the word. Just because some random person said
>> something pithy on the internet once upon a time and called it a 'law'
>> doesn't mean it really is one.
>
> Could we get our history right, please? It wasn't about the Internet. It
> was about Usenet. Usenet is not a subset of the Internet. Usenet is
> older than Web-based social media, but it's not older than computer
> bulletin boards. Prior to NNTP, Usenet traffic didn't even use the
> Internet, but UUCP, or tapes could by physically transferred or even
> mailed.
>
> This is the law, the term "law" being an observation about the nature of
> discussions and not a statute passed by a legislative body.
It's not a law in the scientific sense, either. In fact, it's not a law in
> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>> moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>>> Yet I don't think I've imagined that 'communist' could almost have its
>>> own Godwin law
>
>> LOL! it doesn't, but that apparently isn't going to stop you from
>> pretending it does because you can 'imagine' it.
>
>> And even that ridiculous Godwin 'law' isn't actually a law in any
>> relevant sense of the word. Just because some random person said
>> something pithy on the internet once upon a time and called it a 'law'
>> doesn't mean it really is one.
>
> Could we get our history right, please? It wasn't about the Internet. It
> was about Usenet. Usenet is not a subset of the Internet. Usenet is
> older than Web-based social media, but it's not older than computer
> bulletin boards. Prior to NNTP, Usenet traffic didn't even use the
> Internet, but UUCP, or tapes could by physically transferred or even
> mailed.
>
> This is the law, the term "law" being an observation about the nature of
> discussions and not a statute passed by a legislative body.
any sense of the word. It's just called that by people whenever they have a
vested interest in presenting it as some unassailable and unarguable fact,
which it is not. It was just a comment made by some guy about 30 years ago.
moviePig
Mar 21, 2019, 2:16:34 PM3/21/19
to
think 'unexamined' pretty accurately describes most U.S. citizens'
conception of 'communist' theory as unadorned Stalinist Evil.
Adam H. Kerman
Mar 21, 2019, 2:24:19 PM3/21/19
to
BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>Yet I don't think I've imagined that 'communist' could almost have its
>>>>own Godwin law
>>>LOL! it doesn't, but that apparently isn't going to stop you from
>>>pretending it does because you can 'imagine' it.
>>>And even that ridiculous Godwin 'law' isn't actually a law in any
>>>relevant sense of the word. Just because some random person said
>>>something pithy on the internet once upon a time and called it a 'law'
>>>doesn't mean it really is one.
>>Could we get our history right, please? It wasn't about the Internet. It
>>was about Usenet. Usenet is not a subset of the Internet. Usenet is
>>older than Web-based social media, but it's not older than computer
>>bulletin boards. Prior to NNTP, Usenet traffic didn't even use the
>>Internet, but UUCP, or tapes could by physically transferred or even
>>mailed.
>>This is the law, the term "law" being an observation about the nature of
>>discussions and not a statute passed by a legislative body.
>It's not a law in the scientific sense, either. In fact, it's not a law in
>any sense of the word.
How about a bitter, bemused observation about never ending discussion?
>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>Yet I don't think I've imagined that 'communist' could almost have its
>>>>own Godwin law
>>>LOL! it doesn't, but that apparently isn't going to stop you from
>>>pretending it does because you can 'imagine' it.
>>>And even that ridiculous Godwin 'law' isn't actually a law in any
>>>relevant sense of the word. Just because some random person said
>>>something pithy on the internet once upon a time and called it a 'law'
>>>doesn't mean it really is one.
>>Could we get our history right, please? It wasn't about the Internet. It
>>was about Usenet. Usenet is not a subset of the Internet. Usenet is
>>older than Web-based social media, but it's not older than computer
>>bulletin boards. Prior to NNTP, Usenet traffic didn't even use the
>>Internet, but UUCP, or tapes could by physically transferred or even
>>mailed.
>>This is the law, the term "law" being an observation about the nature of
>>discussions and not a statute passed by a legislative body.
>It's not a law in the scientific sense, either. In fact, it's not a law in
>any sense of the word.
>It's just called that by people whenever they have a vested interest
>in presenting it as some unassailable and unarguable fact, which it is
>not. It was just a comment made by some guy about 30 years ago.
Usenet in which anyone still discusses the original topic with decent
arguments after several rounds?
It's probably called a "law" and not an "observation" because Goodwin
was a lawyer.
Ed Stasiak
Mar 21, 2019, 2:49:00 PM3/21/19
to
> Adam H. Kerman
> > BTR1701
using incorrectly to declare victory in a debate they’ve lost;
Person A: “This oppressive and totalitarian policy is a great idea.”
Person B: “Wow dude, that’s just like the Nazis.”
Person A: “Haha, I’m right because you said Nazi!”
Person B: “But that is just like the…”
Person A: "Lalala, I can’t hear you, you said Nazi and so I win!”
> > BTR1701
> >
> > It's just called that by people whenever they have a vested interest
> > in presenting it as some unassailable and unarguable fact, which it is
> > not. It was just a comment made by some guy about 30 years ago.
>
> Uh, is he wrong? Has there ever been a discussion of any length on
> Usenet in which anyone still discusses the original topic with decent
> arguments after several rounds?
Of course there have been but the issue with “Godwin’s Law” is people
> > It's just called that by people whenever they have a vested interest
> > in presenting it as some unassailable and unarguable fact, which it is
> > not. It was just a comment made by some guy about 30 years ago.
>
> Uh, is he wrong? Has there ever been a discussion of any length on
> Usenet in which anyone still discusses the original topic with decent
> arguments after several rounds?
using incorrectly to declare victory in a debate they’ve lost;
Person A: “This oppressive and totalitarian policy is a great idea.”
Person B: “Wow dude, that’s just like the Nazis.”
Person A: “Haha, I’m right because you said Nazi!”
Person B: “But that is just like the…”
Person A: "Lalala, I can’t hear you, you said Nazi and so I win!”
Adam H. Kerman
Mar 21, 2019, 2:49:06 PM3/21/19
to
attributed to Stalin's regime. Note that if it's merely 60 million, and
65 million are attributed to Mao, then the "winner" of the most
systematic state killings is Mao.
It's great to live under a Communist regime! Just ignore that half the
people you knew were sent to the Gulag.
moviePig
Mar 21, 2019, 4:25:25 PM3/21/19
to
I think the original observation meant to indicate that Usenet debates
gravitate to extreme -- rather than apt -- examples for "support".
0 new messages