Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
How many employees in an organisation have to exhibit bad behaviour before you'd consider it 'evidence' that there is something wrong with the organization as a whole? This is the best question in the thread.

Hmm... Does that question apply to drug makers too?

Pfizer fined $2.3 billion in drug-marketing case (September 2, 2009)

Quote:
Drug giant Pfizer (PFE) agreed today to plead guilty to a charge of illegally marketing the now-withdrawn painkiller Bextra.

But that's not all. The drug giant agreed to pay $2.3 billion in fines to settle allegations that it illegally marketed 13 drugs, including Bextra. It is the largest fine ever levied for fraud in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
...
Pfizer was deemed a repeat offender in pitching drugs to patients and doctors for conditions not approved by healthcare regulators.

Pfizer had pleaded guilty in 2004 to an earlier criminal charge of improper sales tactics and its marketing practices have been under federal supervision since then.
...
The settlement announced on Wednesday by Pfizer includes a $1.3 billion criminal fine related to methods of selling Bextra.
...
Prosecutors said that they have become so alarmed by the growing criminality in the industry that they have begun increasing fines into the billions of dollars and will soon start charging doctors individually as well.

In January, prosecutors announced that they would fine Eli Lilly (LLY) $1.4 billion for its illegal marketing efforts on behalf of Zyprexa, an antipsychotic.
...

Where are the pitchforks for Pfizer and Eli Lilly? It looks to me that $11 million (Pfizer) and $7 million (Eli Lilly) spent on lobbying goes a long way when it comes to calming down angry peasants (Top Lobbying Spenders).

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
But if you've read the entire text of his statement his meaning is clear.

What - no link? How do we know that you've read the entire statement?

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
It's a cynical and backhanded attempt to intimidate opposition to the health care debate. That seems a popular tactic these days.

Intimidate those who intimidate! Hardly. The cynicism is yours. Considering that the arguments against health care have been comprised entirely of bogus claims made on the basis of how much fear they could generate, there hasn't been any debate whatsoever, just a series of rounds of propaganda debunking.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
Carter's race baiting is the ugly twin of racism and is a symptom of the institutional racism that both parties perpetuate.

Nuts! Carter's remarks share no common lineage with racism. The ugly twin of racism is the denial of racism.

Quote: Original post by BerwynIrish

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
As for your premise that this is much ado about nothing, Fox News is evil, etc... Both houses of the legislature voted to defund ACORN, with majorities from both parties. Obviously both halls of congress felt there was more to the issue.

It's only obvious if you're on the vendetta bandwagon. What other reason could Congress have for doing this, do you suppose?

I find your respect for the swift judgment of the United States Congress surprising, and it sure as hell isn't evidence of anything. When Congress produces evidence of whatever-the-hell-ACORN-is-up-to which isn't already on the table, then you can get back to me about what Congress has to say.

I'm not endorsing their decision, just stating that your poo pooing of the information that's available doesn't fit with congresses actions. Your argument appears to be "consider the source", which isn't compelling unless one shares all of your same premises.

I'll be the first(or in this case second) to admit that congress isn't a bastion of reason and logic.

If I had to guess I'd say this is the official cast off between ACORN and whatever connections it had in government. The moment liberal commentators switch from defending to roasting ACORN it will be official.

Quote: Original post by BerwynIrish

Quote:

Quote: Original post by BerwynIrish
Giving it some more thought, I don't think that I adequately addressed a main point of disagreement between superpig and myself.

Allow me to summarize:

-Blame the messenger
-They were all just joking

I'll allow you to summarize, but I won't allow you to be dishonest.

When the messengers are all liars, then it's fair to point that out, which is not nearly the same thing as blaming the messenger.

Eelco's straw men ticked me off a bit, and combined with my reluctance to repeat myself, my response was kind of half-assed, which is worse than not responding at all.

It's a smear campaign. Not only are these people liars in general, they've been lying specifically about ACORN since the campaign last year. I'm not saying the videos themselves are fake (although I certainly won't rule out "edited to be misleading"), but as far as evidence of institutional corruption at ACORN goes, which they are being hyped as by a disturbing number of people, they are laughable. As I told superpig, you're free to waste your time investigating ACORN as an institution based on this flimsy evidence, but you're being played for a chump. Congratulations, you've allowed the random hatred of American conservatives dictate who you think is worthy of criminal investigation.

And because it's a smear campaign, when no convictions, or even trials, are forthcoming over these charges (as is the case with previous charges against ACORN), they'll invent new charges at some future date. Feel free to waste your time with those, too. I'll just sit here and laugh and wonder when you're gonna learn.

Well, I'll laugh, but I'll also shed a tear or two over your complicity in smearing ACORN. Even if you never say "Yep, they've definitely got the goods on ACORN this time", because when people like you insist that we take each strike of their vendetta seriously outside of the context of the vendetta, you're contributing to the cumulative negative connotation effect I mentioned previously. And that's just as satisfying for the liars as is full-blown Kool-Aid quaffing.

Damn right I'm calling out the messengers on their habitual dishonesty. It's the efficient response. There is no other way to counter their sleazy tactics.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
What - no link? How do we know that you've read the entire statement?

Well, I quoted some of it earlier in the thread, I may have linked it ealrier as well. Further, he gave a speech the following day that ended all pretense. I'm sure you;ve read or listened to that as well.

Quote:
Intimidate those who intimidate! Hardly. The cynicism is yours. Considering that the arguments against health care have been comprised entirely of bogus claims made on the basis of how much fear they could generate, there hasn't been any debate whatsoever, just a series of rounds of propaganda debunking.

Rather, people have chosen what they feel are easily debunked arguments and then present them as the entirety of opposition. Common practice on both sides of the aisle. You're smarter than that, and now you know that I am as well.

Quote:
Nuts! Carter's remarks share no common lineage with racism. The ugly twin of racism is the denial of racism.

Sure it does. Crying wolf and using an actual social problem as a bludgeon against honest debate is cowardly, and desperate as well. A cynical use of race-baiting like Carter's does plenty to perpetuate the problem.

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Are Republicans as a group racist? Not explicitly.

So then are you saying they are implicitly racist?

Well... As a group they aren't openly so, but they are pretty damn tone deaf when it comes to issues of race. Last year their defacto spokesman thought "Barack the Magic Negro" was funny. He also thought that Colin Powell only endorsed Obama for President because he was black. He didn't say that when Lincoln Chafee endorsed him or when other white Republicans endorse him (Republicans and Conservatives Endorsing Barack). It's not just a black/white thing either. It's difficult to discount the influence that racism plays in the Republican party regarding immigration. They don't seem very upset with illegal Irish immigration. They aren't calling for blockading Boston Harbor but they sure are quick to call for fences along the Southern border, even military troops. This last March, Gov. Perry of Texas - they guy who flirts with secessionists - said he wouldn't care if military troops were sent to guard the Texas border [1].

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight
My point is not the issue, it's the attitude with which you speak on the issues. If you haven't noticed (not that I think anyone should notice my absence), I haven't been posting anywhere near as much as I used to around here. I haven't decreased my participation in discussions on politics in any way -- in fact it's probably increased -- I've just been elsewhere doing it, with a much more diverse spectrum of people than just "left and right" (a false dichotomy that ignores the diversity of opinions. Boolean ideology is artificial). This foray into other forums makes this sort of rhetoric incredibly... jarring in its divisiveness.

I admit my attitude has been angry at times and that you've been at the receiving end of it too. As for where you've been, what can I say? More power to you.

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight
When you talk about "Republicans", you talk about the group as a whole, which includes many people here. I'm personally registered Republican, for various reasons. When you intimate a belief that being a Republican make a person in some way a racist, then you say to your fellow forum members, "you are a racist".

When I talk about Republicans I usually mean Republican leaders -- politicians, radio talk show commentators, television personalities, newspaper columnists. If you identify with those people and thus take my statements about them as applying to everyday people, what can I say? As you point out, people register Republican for a lot of different reasons. I don't think that makes them racist, but these days, sad to say, it makes them suspect. At least that's been my personal experience of late, not on these boards, not of flat out racism, not hatred, but clear racial prejudice. When my Republican cousin calls me on election night to make fun of Jesse Jackson for crying tears of joy -- What am I supposed to think? He fits right in with guys like this.

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight
That's why I made the "robots" comment, to contrast against what I thought was an equally ridiculous statement to "republicans are racist".

I didn't make that statement, you did in your interpretation of what I wrote: "Moreover, [Republicans] target [ACORN] because it fits their longstanding strategy of scaring white people into fearing that their tax dollars are being wasted on undeserving black and brown people." You turned that into a charge of racism and extending it to apply to everyday Republicans. I guess my comment struck too close to home and could only be countered with some fury of your own.

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight
It feeds nicely into the discussion on Carter's comments, "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man". Mith says, "What else can it possibly be [than racism]? They didn't go this nuts when Clinton tried making the same reforms..." Really, when was the last time anyone went this nuts about anything? Code Pink with war protests comes to mind*. It's been a steadily growing trend, this loud thrashing of signs and protests at the drop of a hat. So busy yelling about teabaggers and hitlers and brownshirts and racists that there is no listening. This is a fundamental theme of President Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope" (yes, I'm reading it). It's too easy to call it racism and dismiss the lot. I don't think its racism at all. I know a lot of racists; they are dirt-poor bottom feeders. The impact that these people (at least the ones I have met) have on society and policy is infinitesimal at best. Why even give them and their opinions the time of day in such discussions? It's not racism, it's just plain noise making, with no intention of ever listening, and it's coming from the right AND the left. In these discussions, they are strawmen.

CodePink hardly compares, but I'm sure they would love having a cable channel promote their protests weeks in advance. I'm amazed at how quickly the "everyone does it" argument is made in these discussions.

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight
I tried starting a discussion with a few new acquaintances on the healthcare proposals. I presented fairly standard Libertarian views on the role of the state in the lives of people. It ended with these folks literally calling me a "dick", and that I "must hate poor people and want them to die." Whether you agree with the Libertarian viewpoint or not does not change the fact that Libertarians hold their views because they believe it to be the "least evil" or "greatest good", not because they want "old ladies to choose between eating and buying medicine". Is it so much of a mystery why people get defensive when this sort of things happen?

I can't account for your new acquaintances. I can tell you that every year 45,000 Americans die for lack of health insurance (45,000 American deaths associated with lack of insurance). So yes, people do get defensive over this subject, and they do get testy with people advocating what boils down to an unnecessary experimental approach to resolving the problem.

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight
If these people are not the mainstream opinion, are "astroturfers" or whatever, then why do people pay attention to it? Regardless of the trends of the media, if it's supposedly not important, then just ignore it. By bringing it up in discussions like this, it comes across as attempting to marginalize other dissenting opinions by association.

Regardless of the media? People pay attention to the 'astroturfers' because the media pays attention to them. Fox News organizes them. The rest of the media follows along. What other dissenting opinions are out there? Where are the conservatives making substantive arguments against the current health care reforms and offering alternative reforms of their own? I'm not sucking all the air out of the room. They're doing that to themselves. They're marginalizing the rational voices in their party.

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight
I'm not trying to say that we should all be friends and hold hands and "try to work this out." But come on, give a little consideration to your opponents. They don't actually eat babies.

Looking over the infant mortality rates, I'm not so sure ... [grin]

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight
*speaking of, where have they been? It turns out, they are still very much active. Can we not show dissent amongst the ranks of the liberal left? I wonder how many of them voted for Obama and are now sorely disappointed

And Cindy Sheehan went to picket Obama's vacation too. Kennedy's death overshadowed her efforts. And when it comes to internal partisan dissent, a week ago the liberal left was about to kill health care reform because it lacked the public option. They still might.

At any rate, we're getting far away from ACORN.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote: Original post by LessBread
What - no link? How do we know that you've read the entire statement?

Well, I quoted some of it earlier in the thread, I may have linked it ealrier as well. Further, he gave a speech the following day that ended all pretense. I'm sure you;ve read or listened to that as well.

But you were making a claim about the entirely of his remarks ("if you've read the entire text of his statement his meaning is clear."), not the snippet you quoted.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
Intimidate those who intimidate! Hardly. The cynicism is yours. Considering that the arguments against health care have been comprised entirely of bogus claims made on the basis of how much fear they could generate, there hasn't been any debate whatsoever, just a series of rounds of propaganda debunking.

Rather, people have chosen what they feel are easily debunked arguments and then present them as the entirety of opposition. Common practice on both sides of the aisle. You're smarter than that, and now you know that I am as well.

There hasn't been any substantive debate, even as the issue has gotten the most media coverage by far.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
Nuts! Carter's remarks share no common lineage with racism. The ugly twin of racism is the denial of racism.

Sure it does. Crying wolf and using an actual social problem as a bludgeon against honest debate is cowardly, and desperate as well. A cynical use of race-baiting like Carter's does plenty to perpetuate the problem.

Carter isn't crying wolf. How many more ugly photos does Mith need to dig up? How many examples of badly behaving Republicans are necessary? How big an increase in death threats against the President is necessary? Carter isn't bludgeoning honest debate, there hasn't been any honest debate! And if you want to talk about bludgeons, this ACORN scandal is tailor made to change the subject away from the disaster that opposition to health care reform has been for Republicans.

For the record, My Mother is half Scott, quater English and quater Irish, Father half Italian, quater Greek and quater Albanian. You see I am what America calls a "moron".

Made some tweaks -- Promit.

[Edited by - Promit on September 19, 2009 4:36:38 PM]

New England? The "from" field says Los Angeles.

The creator? Would that be Nature's God?

Last year the GOP tried to blame ACORN for the subprime mortgage collapse. Here's a critical look at that attack: The GOP's Blame-ACORN Game (October 22, 2008)

Quote:
...
For months, the right-wing echo chamber--bloggers, columnists, editorial writers and TV and radio talk-show hosts--has pitched in with a well-orchestrated campaign to blame the mortgage crisis on ACORN and the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), the 1977 anti-redlining law. In a September 27 editorial, the Wall Street Journal wrote that "ACORN has promoted laws like the Community Reinvestment Act, which laid the foundation for the house of cards built out of subprime loans" and then falsely claimed the bailout bill would create a trust fund "pipeline" to fill ACORN's coffers. On October 14 the Journal's lead editorial, Obama and ACORN, described ACORN as a "shady outfit" and accused the group of being "a major contributor to the subprime meltdown by pushing lenders to make home loans on easy terms, conducting 'strikes' against banks so they'd lower credit standards."
...
The right-wing case against the CRA is entirely bogus--a diversionary tactic to take the heat off the financial services industry and its allies, like McCain. The CRA applies only to depository institutions, like commercial and savings banks, but thanks to Congress's deregulation mania, there are now many other lenders, including private mortgage companies like CitiMortgage, Household Finance and Countrywide Financial (which was recently bought out by Bank of America). These outfits, which exist in a shadow world without government oversight, account for most of the predatory loans in trouble today.
...
Congress passed the CRA after many studies, using the banks' lending data, had documented widespread racial discrimination in mortgage lending. The CRA encourages federally chartered banks to examine the credit needs of the communities they serve and to lend based on these needs--for small businesses, homes and other types of loans. It does not require banks to make loans to businesses or people who can't repay them. It does not ask banks to engage in charity. It simply tells banks: don't discriminate against qualified borrowers.
...
While the CRA helped boost the nation's homeownership rate, particularly among black and Latino borrowers, subprime and other exotic mortgages had very little impact on homeownership. Most subprime loans were refinances of existing mortgages. From 1998 through 2005, more than half of all subprime mortgages were for refinancing, while less than 10 percent of subprime loans went to first-time home buyers. Moreover, a significant number of borrowers who took out subprime loans could have qualified for conventional, prime-rate mortgages with much better terms. Even the Wall Street Journal acknowledges that "plenty of people with seemingly good credit are also caught in the subprime trap." Brokers and lenders misled many of these homeowners, replacing safe thirty-year fixed-rate mortgages with deceptive, risky loans.
...
ACORN and its allies, including the Center for Responsible Lending, the Greenlining Institute, the Center for Community Change and the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, carried on the battle against abusive lenders on many fronts to ensure that loans in minority areas did not put borrowers in risky situations. ACORN's homeownership counseling program for prospective borrowers was successful in helping families avoid taking out loans they could not afford. In 2006 the foreclosure rate of loans to borrowers who went through ACORN's homeowner counseling program stood at .032 percent.

ACORN and other consumer groups fought for rules requiring lenders to document that borrowers had the ability to repay. They warned that adjustable-rate mortgages--those that started with a low "teaser" rate, which would adjust to a much higher rate later--were a ticking time bomb and that such loans should be made only to people who were able to afford the regular rates after the teasers had run out. But the lenders and the securitizers (Wall Street firms that packaged loans into mortgage-backed securities and sold them)--and too often the regulators and the lawmakers--didn't heed the warnings. The industry convinced its political cronies that government regulation was too costly and cumbersome.
...