Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Business Booming
Author Message
200yrs2late Offline
Resident Parrothead
*

Posts: 15,328
Joined: Jan 2010
Reputation: 767
I Root For: East Carolina
Location: SE of disorder
Post: #61
RE: Business Booming
(04-18-2017 03:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(04-18-2017 03:26 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  
(04-18-2017 03:07 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  
(04-18-2017 02:42 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  
(04-18-2017 02:00 PM)Leftwingtom Wrote:  Nope. I was a Bernie supporter.

LOL

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Hey hey hey!!! Don't misquote like that! Them's fightin' words!

Fixed.

Grow up.

Bite me. I don't want to be confused with an economically illiterate
socialist supporter.
04-19-2017 01:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Redwingtom Offline
Progressive filth
*

Posts: 51,524
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 971
I Root For: B-G-S-U !!!!
Location: Soros' Basement
Post: #62
RE: Business Booming
(04-19-2017 01:03 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  
(04-18-2017 03:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(04-18-2017 03:26 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  
(04-18-2017 03:07 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  
(04-18-2017 02:42 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  LOL

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Hey hey hey!!! Don't misquote like that! Them's fightin' words!

Fixed.

Grow up.

Bite me. I don't want to be confused with an economically illiterate
socialist supporter.

I was referring to his changing my name. Not removing yours.
04-19-2017 01:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
200yrs2late Offline
Resident Parrothead
*

Posts: 15,328
Joined: Jan 2010
Reputation: 767
I Root For: East Carolina
Location: SE of disorder
Post: #63
RE: Business Booming
(04-19-2017 01:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(04-19-2017 01:03 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  
(04-18-2017 03:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(04-18-2017 03:26 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  
(04-18-2017 03:07 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Hey hey hey!!! Don't misquote like that! Them's fightin' words!

Fixed.

Grow up.

Bite me. I don't want to be confused with an economically illiterate
socialist supporter.

I was referring to his changing my name. Not removing yours.

Gotcha, didn't even notice it. My point and comment still stands though.
04-19-2017 02:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,279
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #64
RE: Business Booming
(04-19-2017 09:15 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(04-18-2017 04:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(04-18-2017 01:01 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(04-18-2017 12:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The 'violation' only comes if China is getting something in exchange for it...
I don't believe that is true.
If Ivanka is getting this patent deal solely because she has the ear of the president, that is most likely a violation of the emoluments clause.

Absolutely not. You obviously don't understand the emoluments clause. Hambone's recital is much closer to what it actually says.

No...sorry...I'll take the word of an actual ethics lawyer, Richard Painter, instead of an anonymous internet poster.

Except that you take his words over numerous other ethics lawyers (and supreme court justices) who would disagree with him, merely because his argument makes sense to you/you agree with it. It's not like that guy is the undisputed expert on such things and nobody else disagrees with him... so you're really just making up your own mind, and then finding people of higher status who agree with you.

Use your own brain and tell me how your interpretation of the clause (or his) at the time of its drafting holds water if our first few Presidents weren't required to sell their farms or lands.


If you don't want to do that....
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/fi...-p0156.pdf
The Emoluments Clause of the Constitution prohibits government employees from accepting any sort of payment from a foreign government, except with the consent of Congress. Congress has consented to the receipt of minimal gifts from a foreign state, 5 U.S.C. § 7342, but has not
consented to receipt of compensation for services rendered.

So essentially as I asked initially (and you said wasn't true)... What 'Services' have been rendered to China in exchange for the 'gift' to Ivanka?

If you can't name that, then what is the 'other than minimal' gift to her, other than something that ANYONE could ask for and receive. Perhaps her process was expedited, but that's not uncommon at all. If THAT is your complaint... then holy crap you guys are reaching.

Billy Beer became a 'thing' in the late 70's because his brother Jimmy was the President... so 'the family' certainly profited from being elected. So has every other President and their family derived tertiary benefit from the election. Hillary NEVER becomes a NY Senator without her husband being elected President... and the Clinton foundation is PERHAPS a $2,000,000 enterprise... and their property is worth 1/2 what it is... and their daughter's net worth is at most half of what it is.
(This post was last modified: 04-19-2017 04:55 PM by Hambone10.)
04-19-2017 04:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Redwingtom Offline
Progressive filth
*

Posts: 51,524
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 971
I Root For: B-G-S-U !!!!
Location: Soros' Basement
Post: #65
RE: Business Booming
(04-19-2017 04:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(04-19-2017 09:15 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(04-18-2017 04:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(04-18-2017 01:01 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(04-18-2017 12:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The 'violation' only comes if China is getting something in exchange for it...
I don't believe that is true.
If Ivanka is getting this patent deal solely because she has the ear of the president, that is most likely a violation of the emoluments clause.

Absolutely not. You obviously don't understand the emoluments clause. Hambone's recital is much closer to what it actually says.

No...sorry...I'll take the word of an actual ethics lawyer, Richard Painter, instead of an anonymous internet poster.

Except that you take his words over numerous other ethics lawyers (and supreme court justices) who would disagree with him, merely because his argument makes sense to you/you agree with it. It's not like that guy is the undisputed expert on such things and nobody else disagrees with him... so you're really just making up your own mind, and then finding people of higher status who agree with you.

Use your own brain and tell me how your interpretation of the clause (or his) at the time of its drafting holds water if our first few Presidents weren't required to sell their farms or lands.


If you don't want to do that....
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/fi...-p0156.pdf
The Emoluments Clause of the Constitution prohibits government employees from accepting any sort of payment from a foreign government, except with the consent of Congress. Congress has consented to the receipt of minimal gifts from a foreign state, 5 U.S.C. § 7342, but has not
consented to receipt of compensation for services rendered.

So essentially as I asked initially (and you said wasn't true)... What 'Services' have been rendered to China in exchange for the 'gift' to Ivanka?

If you can't name that, then what is the 'other than minimal' gift to her, other than something that ANYONE could ask for and receive. Perhaps her process was expedited, but that's not uncommon at all. If THAT is your complaint... then holy crap you guys are reaching.

Billy Beer became a 'thing' in the late 70's because his brother Jimmy was the President... so 'the family' certainly profited from being elected. So has every other President and their family derived tertiary benefit from the election. Hillary NEVER becomes a NY Senator without her husband being elected President... and the Clinton foundation is PERHAPS a $2,000,000 enterprise... and their property is worth 1/2 what it is... and their daughter's net worth is at most half of what it is.

Dude...you just posted this!

Quote:The Emoluments Clause of the Constitution prohibits government employees from accepting any sort of payment from a foreign government, except with the consent of Congress

Where does it say that the foreign government gets anything? Hint: It doesn't.

The additional stuff you cited speaks to what congress has added to the clause. That minimal gifts are allowed. They did not speak to the other part...meaning it does not apply and the original wording of the Constitution applies.
(This post was last modified: 04-19-2017 05:02 PM by Redwingtom.)
04-19-2017 05:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DefCONNOne Offline
That damn MLS!!

Posts: 11,005
Joined: Jul 2013
I Root For: UCONN
Location: MLS HQ
Post: #66
RE: Business Booming
(04-18-2017 09:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(04-18-2017 09:17 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  
(04-18-2017 09:10 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(04-18-2017 09:02 AM)VA49er Wrote:  
(04-18-2017 08:57 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And that's the million dollar answer as to why we need to totally take away these potential conflicts. So we don't have to assume anything and we just know that nothing untoward it taking place. That's what we should be demanding of our government employees, right?

Who knows? Lots of more important things to worry about than what Ivanka is trying to sell in China. Need to prioritize, my friend, and don't sweat the small stuff. 04-cheers

Not sweating anything...but I don't want my political leaders enriching themselves from foreign countries while in office because it's just wrong. That's why it's in the Constitution.

I believe you were in her camp this past election cycle.
[Image: hillary-clinton-laughing.jpg]

Nope. I was a Bernie supporter.

And FWIW - If you're going the CF route, she takes no salary from the CF and had agreed to totally remove herself from it had she won.

So you voted for Bernie on Nov. 8th, 2016? I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that...no, no you didn't.
04-19-2017 05:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Redwingtom Offline
Progressive filth
*

Posts: 51,524
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 971
I Root For: B-G-S-U !!!!
Location: Soros' Basement
Post: #67
RE: Business Booming
(04-19-2017 05:04 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  
(04-18-2017 09:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(04-18-2017 09:17 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  
(04-18-2017 09:10 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(04-18-2017 09:02 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Who knows? Lots of more important things to worry about than what Ivanka is trying to sell in China. Need to prioritize, my friend, and don't sweat the small stuff. 04-cheers

Not sweating anything...but I don't want my political leaders enriching themselves from foreign countries while in office because it's just wrong. That's why it's in the Constitution.

I believe you were in her camp this past election cycle.
[Image: hillary-clinton-laughing.jpg]

Nope. I was a Bernie supporter.

And FWIW - If you're going the CF route, she takes no salary from the CF and had agreed to totally remove herself from it had she won.

So you voted for Bernie on Nov. 8th, 2016? I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that...no, no you didn't.

Of course not...he wasn't on the ballot. I voted against Trump. Nothing more. I voted for him in the primary. If I thought he had any shot at winning I would have written him in.
(This post was last modified: 04-19-2017 05:07 PM by Redwingtom.)
04-19-2017 05:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #68
RE: Business Booming
I voted for Hillary in order to vote against Bernie in the primary. At that point I thought the democrats had this one, so I voted for the least objectionable democrat. I voted against Hillary--and Trump--in the general. I have no reason to regret either vote.
04-19-2017 05:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BlazerFan11 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,228
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 367
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #69
RE: Business Booming
(04-19-2017 05:06 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Of course not...he wasn't on the ballot. I voted against Trump. Nothing more. I voted for him in the primary. If I thought he had any shot at winning I would have written him in.

I don't remember "Against Trump" on the ballot. It sounds like you are trying to say you voted FOR Hillary.

But there's just no way someone who could be upset about the OP could be THAT hypocritical, right?
04-19-2017 07:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hood-rich Offline
Smarter Than the Average Lib

Posts: 9,300
Joined: May 2016
I Root For: ECU & CSU
Location: The Hood
Post: #70
RE: Business Booming
(04-19-2017 05:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Dude...you just posted this!

Quote:The Emoluments Clause of the Constitution prohibits government employees from accepting any sort of payment from a foreign government, except with the consent of Congress

Where does it say that the foreign government gets anything? Hint: It doesn't.

The additional stuff you cited speaks to what congress has added to the clause. That minimal gifts are allowed. They did not speak to the other part...meaning it does not apply and the original wording of the Constitution applies.

Ivanka isn't a gov't employee. wtf is your point?

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app
04-19-2017 08:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
58-56 Offline
Blazer Revolutionary
*

Posts: 13,288
Joined: Mar 2006
Reputation: 825
I Root For: Fire Ray Watts
Location: CathedraloftheDragon

BlazerTalk Award
Post: #71
RE: Business Booming
(04-19-2017 08:06 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  
(04-19-2017 05:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Dude...you just posted this!

Quote:The Emoluments Clause of the Constitution prohibits government employees from accepting any sort of payment from a foreign government, except with the consent of Congress

Where does it say that the foreign government gets anything? Hint: It doesn't.

The additional stuff you cited speaks to what congress has added to the clause. That minimal gifts are allowed. They did not speak to the other part...meaning it does not apply and the original wording of the Constitution applies.

Ivanka isn't a gov't employee. wtf is your point?

Sorry, she is:

Ivanka Trump, the elder daughter of President Trump, is becoming an official government employee

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/us/po...house.html
04-19-2017 09:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Redwingtom Offline
Progressive filth
*

Posts: 51,524
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 971
I Root For: B-G-S-U !!!!
Location: Soros' Basement
Post: #72
RE: Business Booming
Yeah...she's an employee. Even if she draws no salary, she's still technically an employee and is subject to the emoluments clause.
(This post was last modified: 04-20-2017 09:00 AM by Redwingtom.)
04-20-2017 09:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,279
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #73
RE: Business Booming
(04-19-2017 05:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Dude...you just posted this!

Quote:The Emoluments Clause of the Constitution prohibits government employees from accepting any sort of payment from a foreign government, except with the consent of Congress

Where does it say that the foreign government gets anything? Hint: It doesn't.

The additional stuff you cited speaks to what congress has added to the clause. That minimal gifts are allowed. They did not speak to the other part...meaning it does not apply and the original wording of the Constitution applies.

Wow, I'm sorry. I didn't know English was your second language.

You should look up the word 'payment'.

Editing out a portion of what I said and acting like they didn't say anything else doesn't mean that they didn't say anything else. In layman's terms, payment means something given IN EXCHANGE FOR SOMETHING ELSE... whereas a gift means, again, in laymen's terms, something given without compensation.

So it's either a gift, or it is in exchange for something. Hence the two thoughts expressed. The fact that they didn't talk about gifts in part 1, or about payments in part 2, doesn't mean that they didn't know that they would address 'the alternative' elsewhere in the thought.

Pretty simple.

Where does it say that? In the choice of the word 'payment' as opposed to the choice of a different word... like gift.

Ask any lawyer... they will tell you that the terms payment and gift have different meanings.
(This post was last modified: 04-20-2017 11:46 AM by Hambone10.)
04-20-2017 11:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.