(01-27-2016 01:24 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 12:54 PM)VA49er Wrote:  I have a feeling the same people that don't understand "classified information" won't understand "conflict of interest".

I couldn't agree with you more.

Yep!

(01-27-2016 01:03 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 12:56 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 12:23 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 11:48 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 11:46 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  So you know for sure that the ADA never did anything with this case?

You see...once again, here in America, you have to prove allegations and show the conflict. Sorry...foiled yet again by our Constitution.

Funny, you keep mentioning the Constitution...

And well lets see, a Harris County ADA was a PP board member... Want me to link the picture where the ADA states that she was a PP board member?

Yes, she was a Co-Chair of the Planned Parenthood Youth Leaders. You guys make it sound like she was on the board of the national group working hand in hand with Cecile Richards per cripes sake! And per your evidence, this occurred in 2009 and lasted for less than a year. 2009 was 7 years ago!

She did not work on this case.

Therefore, you either have to show she did or that the others on the case were influenced by her. If you can't, there is no conflict. Also, it has been documented above that her PP ties were known before the investigation and she was specifically excluded from it for that very reason.

Go ask one of the lawyers in the law office you allegedly work for and report back if they think you've somehow proven a conflict.

Please show where it says that there is a time limit on the conflict of interest. It doesnt matter when she served on the board.

Also, from the ABA website...

"As noted previously, conflicts may be created by personal interests or representations of or information possessed by the lawyer’s partners, associates, law clerks, office staff, and of counsel attorneys. Conflict checking that includes all of these players is essential. Additionally, run a conflict check before hiring any new staff member. Lawyers engaged in office sharing must also tread carefully to avoid disclosure of or access to client confidences. Failure to do so may lead to imputation of conflicts."

http://www.americanbar.org/newsletter/pu...erest.html

But if you really think that one of her assistants didnt have anything to do with this case, then I still have that ocean front property in AZ to sell you. You seriously do not know how the legal system works.

You are the dumbest person i have ever seen. I find it hilarious that you took the time to bother researching time limits on conflict of interest. Have you even inserted any evidence into the thread that this person worked on this specific case?

You know, the most important part of your argument that makes or breaks it?*

using this logic you could say any corporation, organization, etc. can not be indicted if they have one loose (and in this case it is extremely loose) connection to anyone in the DA office.

for all the talk of how this would be such a bad precedent because no one would be able to do a sting operation again (hardly the case, but you said it so I'm going with it), can we talk about the precedent (or better yet massive logical fallacy) that you are suggesting here. every corrupt corporation could hire some DA workers (hell even a janitor) to some honorary position where they do nothing and claim they can't be prosecuted because conflict of interest. That's how stupid your argument is and you claim you work in a law office.

on top of all of that, "conflict of interest no time limit" my ass. Like seriously, our legal system regarding conflict of interest states that you have to remove yourself to clear the COI. For example, quit your job as co-chair, or sell your stocks in the company in question, put your business empire in a blind trust.

to say conflict of interest doesn't have a time limit is pure fabrication. granted this isn't true for every case, but to suggest this and spend so much time on it is pure stupidity, and again you claim to work in a law office.

so I guess i must ask, what exactly do you do in said office?

*I guess this is the conservative way. Make a bold accusation, focus on the trivial things while ignoring the critical/important part of your argument and simply take it as truth.

(01-27-2016 02:27 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 01:03 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 12:56 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 12:23 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 11:48 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  You see...once again, here in America, you have to prove allegations and show the conflict. Sorry...foiled yet again by our Constitution.

Funny, you keep mentioning the Constitution...

And well lets see, a Harris County ADA was a PP board member... Want me to link the picture where the ADA states that she was a PP board member?

Yes, she was a Co-Chair of the Planned Parenthood Youth Leaders. You guys make it sound like she was on the board of the national group working hand in hand with Cecile Richards per cripes sake! And per your evidence, this occurred in 2009 and lasted for less than a year. 2009 was 7 years ago!

She did not work on this case.

Therefore, you either have to show she did or that the others on the case were influenced by her. If you can't, there is no conflict. Also, it has been documented above that her PP ties were known before the investigation and she was specifically excluded from it for that very reason.

Go ask one of the lawyers in the law office you allegedly work for and report back if they think you've somehow proven a conflict.

Please show where it says that there is a time limit on the conflict of interest. It doesnt matter when she served on the board.

Also, from the ABA website...

"As noted previously, conflicts may be created by personal interests or representations of or information possessed by the lawyer’s partners, associates, law clerks, office staff, and of counsel attorneys. Conflict checking that includes all of these players is essential. Additionally, run a conflict check before hiring any new staff member. Lawyers engaged in office sharing must also tread carefully to avoid disclosure of or access to client confidences. Failure to do so may lead to imputation of conflicts."

http://www.americanbar.org/newsletter/pu...erest.html

But if you really think that one of her assistants didnt have anything to do with this case, then I still have that ocean front property in AZ to sell you. You seriously do not know how the legal system works.

You are the dumbest person i have ever seen. I find it hilarious that you took the time to bother researching time limits on conflict of interest. Have you even inserted any evidence into the thread that this person worked on this specific case?

You know, the most important part of your argument that makes or breaks it?*

using this logic you could say any corporation, organization, etc. can not be indicted if they have one loose (and in this case it is extremely loose) connection to anyone in the DA office.

for all the talk of how this would be such a bad precedent because no one would be able to do a sting operation again (hardly the case, but you said it so I'm going with it), can we talk about the precedent (or better yet massive logical fallacy) that you are suggesting here. every corrupt corporation could hire some DA workers (hell even a janitor) to some honorary position where they do nothing and claim they can't be prosecuted because conflict of interest. That's how stupid your argument is and you claim you work in a law office.

on top of all of that, "conflict of interest no time limit" my ass. Like seriously, our legal system regarding conflict of interest states that you have to remove yourself to clear the COI. For example, quit your job as co-chair, or sell your stocks in the company in question, put your business empire in a blind trust.

to say conflict of interest doesn't have a time limit is pure fabrication. granted this isn't true for every case, but to suggest this and spend so much time on it is pure stupidity, and again you claim to work in a law office.

so I guess i must ask, what exactly do you do in said office?

*I guess this is the conservative way. Make a bold accusation, focus on the trivial things while ignoring the critical/important part of your argument and simply take it as truth.

Not getting into this particular discussion, but that's actually the liberal way, not the conservative way.

(01-27-2016 02:30 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 02:27 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 01:03 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 12:56 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 12:23 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  Funny, you keep mentioning the Constitution...

And well lets see, a Harris County ADA was a PP board member... Want me to link the picture where the ADA states that she was a PP board member?

Yes, she was a Co-Chair of the Planned Parenthood Youth Leaders. You guys make it sound like she was on the board of the national group working hand in hand with Cecile Richards per cripes sake! And per your evidence, this occurred in 2009 and lasted for less than a year. 2009 was 7 years ago!

She did not work on this case.

Therefore, you either have to show she did or that the others on the case were influenced by her. If you can't, there is no conflict. Also, it has been documented above that her PP ties were known before the investigation and she was specifically excluded from it for that very reason.

Go ask one of the lawyers in the law office you allegedly work for and report back if they think you've somehow proven a conflict.

Please show where it says that there is a time limit on the conflict of interest. It doesnt matter when she served on the board.

Also, from the ABA website...

"As noted previously, conflicts may be created by personal interests or representations of or information possessed by the lawyer’s partners, associates, law clerks, office staff, and of counsel attorneys. Conflict checking that includes all of these players is essential. Additionally, run a conflict check before hiring any new staff member. Lawyers engaged in office sharing must also tread carefully to avoid disclosure of or access to client confidences. Failure to do so may lead to imputation of conflicts."

http://www.americanbar.org/newsletter/pu...erest.html

But if you really think that one of her assistants didnt have anything to do with this case, then I still have that ocean front property in AZ to sell you. You seriously do not know how the legal system works.

You are the dumbest person i have ever seen. I find it hilarious that you took the time to bother researching time limits on conflict of interest. Have you even inserted any evidence into the thread that this person worked on this specific case?

You know, the most important part of your argument that makes or breaks it?*

using this logic you could say any corporation, organization, etc. can not be indicted if they have one loose (and in this case it is extremely loose) connection to anyone in the DA office.

for all the talk of how this would be such a bad precedent because no one would be able to do a sting operation again (hardly the case, but you said it so I'm going with it), can we talk about the precedent (or better yet massive logical fallacy) that you are suggesting here. every corrupt corporation could hire some DA workers (hell even a janitor) to some honorary position where they do nothing and claim they can't be prosecuted because conflict of interest. That's how stupid your argument is and you claim you work in a law office.

on top of all of that, "conflict of interest no time limit" my ass. Like seriously, our legal system regarding conflict of interest states that you have to remove yourself to clear the COI. For example, quit your job as co-chair, or sell your stocks in the company in question, put your business empire in a blind trust.

to say conflict of interest doesn't have a time limit is pure fabrication. granted this isn't true for every case, but to suggest this and spend so much time on it is pure stupidity, and again you claim to work in a law office.

so I guess i must ask, what exactly do you do in said office?

*I guess this is the conservative way. Make a bold accusation, focus on the trivial things while ignoring the critical/important part of your argument and simply take it as truth.

Not getting into this particular discussion, but that's actually the liberal way, not the conservative way.

so UTSA is a liberal?


this is the ultimate proof of just how delusional the cons on this forum are. here is a con, totally ignoring a fellow con doing exactly this in this very thread, blames a liberal for doing instead. you guys live in an alternative reality.

the reality is this. the center for medical progress broke a number of laws. That was indisputable even before this story. you guys refuse to acknowledge that which is why you are pushing this bulls***

(01-27-2016 02:34 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 02:30 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Not getting into this particular discussion, but that's actually the liberal way, not the conservative way.

so UTSA is a liberal?


this is the ultimate proof of just how delusional the cons on this forum are. here is a con, totally ignoring a fellow con doing exactly this in this very thread, blames a liberal for doing instead. you guys live in an alternative reality.

the reality is this. the center for medical progress broke a number of laws. That was indisputable even before this story. you guys refuse to acknowledge that which is why you are pushing this bulls***

I don't think he is a liberal at all. Just saying he is doing something that is far more common with liberals than conservatives like you said.

(01-27-2016 02:39 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 02:34 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 02:30 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Not getting into this particular discussion, but that's actually the liberal way, not the conservative way.

so UTSA is a liberal?


this is the ultimate proof of just how delusional the cons on this forum are. here is a con, totally ignoring a fellow con doing exactly this in this very thread, blames a liberal for doing instead. you guys live in an alternative reality.

the reality is this. the center for medical progress broke a number of laws. That was indisputable even before this story. you guys refuse to acknowledge that which is why you are pushing this bulls***

I don't think he is a liberal at all. Just saying he is doing something that is far more common with liberals than conservatives like you said.

you only think this way because you are so partisan that you live in a world where only you and your fellow cons can see.

repeat what you just did in this tread a dozen times and yeah, no wonder you live in an alternative reality.

Why all the hostility towards PP? I really don't understand. Abortion is legal, soooooo....that's that. It's a safe place to have the procedure done. Anyway, let's here why so many hate PP.

(01-27-2016 02:50 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 02:39 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 02:34 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 02:30 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Not getting into this particular discussion, but that's actually the liberal way, not the conservative way.

so UTSA is a liberal?


this is the ultimate proof of just how delusional the cons on this forum are. here is a con, totally ignoring a fellow con doing exactly this in this very thread, blames a liberal for doing instead. you guys live in an alternative reality.

the reality is this. the center for medical progress broke a number of laws. That was indisputable even before this story. you guys refuse to acknowledge that which is why you are pushing this bulls***

I don't think he is a liberal at all. Just saying he is doing something that is far more common with liberals than conservatives like you said.

you only think this way because you are so partisan that you live in a world where only you and your fellow cons can see.

repeat what you just did in this tread a dozen times and yeah, no wonder you live in an alternative reality.

It's not partisan. It's being smart enough to know what the other side does on a regular basis. It's sort of infuriating when you face the same tactics you use, especially a combination of tactics at the same time.

You are right about one thing, conservatives seem to be the only ones capable of understanding issues without being caught up in the distractions and misdirection that so many liberals get lost in.

(01-27-2016 03:03 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  Why all the hostility towards PP? I really don't understand. Abortion is legal, soooooo....that's that. It's a safe place to have the procedure done. Anyway, let's here why so many hate PP.

PP is supported by tax dollars that in turn free up other sources of their income to provide abortions. Personally I'm against abortions in nearly every single case, yet my tax dollars enable people to murder unborn children. It's an organization the should exist on its own without support from the government.

(01-27-2016 03:03 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  Why all the hostility towards PP? I really don't understand. Abortion is legal, soooooo....that's that. It's a safe place to have the procedure done. Anyway, let's here why so many hate PP.

Start with the concept that money is fungible. Add in the fact that a private organization seems to have a near monopoly on money aimed on womens services.

They are an evil organization founded by a eugenicist that has been caught in would could most generously be called ethically sketchy behavior. They lie about the level and amount of services they provide so as to seem benign but they are first and foremost a murder shop..

Pro life folks are not different than the abolitionism or suffrage supports who were fighting something that was both legal at the time and generally supported by the public at large.

You liberal moonbats just kill me. Planned Parenthood is the mega-corporation that you guys would normally and should despise. You see, they cant just make huge profits by themselves, they need tax dollars to make even more. Huge money making corporation that takes tax dollars. And you liberals blow them because they kills babies. And if they illegally sell baby parts for money or lamborghinis, you just dont care.

(01-27-2016 03:30 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 03:03 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  Why all the hostility towards PP? I really don't understand. Abortion is legal, soooooo....that's that. It's a safe place to have the procedure done. Anyway, let's here why so many hate PP.

PP is supported by tax dollars that in turn free up other sources of their income to provide abortions. Personally I'm against abortions in nearly every single case, yet my tax dollars enable people to murder unborn children. It's an organization the should exist on its own without support from the government.

This is what makes the con position so laughable. you say "my tax dollars shouldn't support something I disagree with" when it's always the cons dragging us into wars and BS trickle down economics. But going back on topic the simple fact is that when we invest in organizations like PP, especially when it comes to birth control, we save much more (like several dollars for every dollar we put in) on social costs.

you think you are arguing that "my money shouldn't be spent on what I don't believe in" but what you are really arguing is "your money should be spent on something you don't necessarily believe in, but I believe in it so that's why we should spend your money on it."

It's the most hypocritical argument imaginable. Your views or my views shouldn't be accounted for. it should come down to what makes the most economical and practical sense. funding organizations like PP fit the bill (pun intended)

(01-27-2016 03:51 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  You liberal moonbats just kill me. Planned Parenthood is the mega-corporation that you guys would normally and should despise.

they are a non-profit

(01-27-2016 03:58 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 03:51 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  You liberal moonbats just kill me. Planned Parenthood is the mega-corporation that you guys would normally and should despise.

they are a non-profit

Let me guess...just like the unions. They only use their government laced profits to "advocate" for certain politicians and pay their executives well.

(01-27-2016 03:58 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 03:51 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  You liberal moonbats just kill me. Planned Parenthood is the mega-corporation that you guys would normally and should despise.

they are a non-profit

Newsflash for those who have no business intelligence;

NON PROFITS ACTUALLY MAKE A PROFIT, THEIR PROFITS ARE SIMPLY NOT TAXED.

But who knew, right?

Let that sink in for a while.

I guess you thought that non-profits actually lost money, therefore had no money. Maybe instead of spending time occupying wall street and taking a dump on the side walk you should brush up on how businesses actually work.

(01-27-2016 03:39 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 03:03 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  Why all the hostility towards PP? I really don't understand. Abortion is legal, soooooo....that's that. It's a safe place to have the procedure done. Anyway, let's here why so many hate PP.

Start with the concept that money is fungible. Add in the fact that a private organization seems to have a near monopoly on money aimed on womens services.

They are an evil organization founded by a eugenicist that has been caught in would could most generously be called ethically sketchy behavior. They lie about the level and amount of services they provide so as to seem benign but they are first and foremost a murder shop..

Pro life folks are not different than the abolitionism or suffrage supports who were fighting something that was both legal at the time and generally supported by the public at large.

PP is not a private organization. It's a 501©(3) charity. In fact, here's their 6/30/14 tax return:
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/...CF_990.pdf

If you're mistaken on even this simple fact, well then....

(01-27-2016 04:02 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 03:58 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 03:51 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  You liberal moonbats just kill me. Planned Parenthood is the mega-corporation that you guys would normally and should despise.

they are a non-profit

Newsflash for those who have no business intelligence;

NON PROFITS ACTUALLY MAKE A PROFIT, THEIR PROFITS ARE SIMPLY NOT TAXED.

But who knew, right?

Let that sink in for a while.

I guess you thought that non-profits actually lost money, therefore had no money. Maybe instead of spending time occupying wall street and taking a dump on the side walk you should brush up on how businesses actually work.

you think you won, but all you did was prove how clueless you are to the conversation. You couldn't win in the direction the conversation was heading so you guys tried to change the direction.

seriously, this started off as a discussion about whether PP was similar to any traditional corporation such as GM. clearly that is incorrect, clearly I pointed that out. clearly you are getting worked up on trivial BS such as "what's a non-profit" rather than the original discussion of "is PP a traditional corporation" which a con poster tried to claim.

Lemme guess 200Y, this tactic being done by cons in this thread isn't really a con tactic even though it's the cons in the thread doing it right?

(01-27-2016 03:56 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 03:30 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 03:03 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  Why all the hostility towards PP? I really don't understand. Abortion is legal, soooooo....that's that. It's a safe place to have the procedure done. Anyway, let's here why so many hate PP.

PP is supported by tax dollars that in turn free up other sources of their income to provide abortions. Personally I'm against abortions in nearly every single case, yet my tax dollars enable people to murder unborn children. It's an organization the should exist on its own without support from the government.

This is what makes the con position so laughable. you say "my tax dollars shouldn't support something I disagree with" when it's always the cons dragging us into wars and BS trickle down economics. But going back on topic the simple fact is that when we invest in organizations like PP, especially when it comes to birth control, we save much more (like several dollars for every dollar we put in) on social costs.

you think you are arguing that "my money shouldn't be spent on what I don't believe in" but what you are really arguing is "your money should be spent on something you don't necessarily believe in, but I believe in it so that's why we should spend your money on it."

It's the most hypocritical argument imaginable. Your views or my views shouldn't be accounted for. it should come down to what makes the most economical and practical sense. funding organizations like PP fit the bill (pun intended)

That's a bunch of horse **** and you know it. Wars are (supposedly) fought in the best interest of national security, no other reason. Tell me what interest of national security funding PP satisfies?

I didn't mention any of the health care services PP provides. I'm perfectly fine with them providing birth control, education, and other related services. If PP has somehow figured out how to be the most efficient at providing healthcare services then why not model the ACA after PP?

You think you are arguing that "when we invest in organizations like PP, especially when it comes to birth control, we save much more (like several dollars for every dollar we put in) on social costs." but what you are really arguing is that it's cheaper to fund PP and kill babies than to support the children growing up and throughout their lives with welfare.

It's incredibly hypocritical to pretend to have people's best interest in mind when really you are concerned about the bottom line. The focus should be on access to quality services that enhance life, not access to 'legal' murder to eliminate the need for future care.

(01-27-2016 04:17 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 04:02 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 03:58 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 03:51 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  You liberal moonbats just kill me. Planned Parenthood is the mega-corporation that you guys would normally and should despise.

they are a non-profit

Newsflash for those who have no business intelligence;

NON PROFITS ACTUALLY MAKE A PROFIT, THEIR PROFITS ARE SIMPLY NOT TAXED.

But who knew, right?

Let that sink in for a while.

I guess you thought that non-profits actually lost money, therefore had no money. Maybe instead of spending time occupying wall street and taking a dump on the side walk you should brush up on how businesses actually work.

you think you won, but all you did was prove how clueless you are to the conversation. You couldn't win in the direction the conversation was heading so you guys tried to change the direction.

seriously, this started off as a discussion about whether PP was similar to any traditional corporation such as GM. clearly that is incorrect, clearly I pointed that out. clearly you are getting worked up on trivial BS such as "what's a non-profit" rather than the original discussion of "is PP a traditional corporation" which a con poster tried to claim.

Lemme guess 200Y, this tactic being done by cons in this thread isn't really a con tactic even though it's the cons in the thread doing it right?

Rules #2 and 3.

(01-27-2016 04:02 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 03:58 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 03:51 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  You liberal moonbats just kill me. Planned Parenthood is the mega-corporation that you guys would normally and should despise.

they are a non-profit

Newsflash for those who have no business intelligence;

NON PROFITS ACTUALLY MAKE A PROFIT, THEIR PROFITS ARE SIMPLY NOT TAXED.

But who knew, right?

Let that sink in for a while.

I guess you thought that non-profits actually lost money, therefore had no money. Maybe instead of spending time occupying wall street and taking a dump on the side walk you should brush up on how businesses actually work.

You should really just stop before embarrassing yourself further.