Merritt starts foundation to fight corruption

People. Please. Standards.

I disagree. Protzman already made a personal assault on CitOp and I by making his comment about a pneumatic wood-splitter.

That should be "Proztman already made a personal assault on CitOp and *ME* by making his comment . . . "

Engagement in petty flame-throwing on a blog is no excuse for abandoning good grammar.

I disagree. Protzman already made a personal assault on CitOp and I by making his comment about a pneumatic wood-splitter. In addition, I feel like criticizing a person for failing to debate an issue in good faith, and in shirking from clarifying their opinions and having them subjected to criticism is a valid use of the comments.

Dome, I might be wrong about this, but I was merely letting Protzman know I don't appreciate his inability to partake in a serious discussion (See below).

As an alternative and additional defense, I would like to point out that Protzman is no private Joe Blow who has an opinion. He is a well known and self-promoting public figure who is open to a higher degree of criticism, and thus any attack on his intellect or ability to debate rationally are as valid as scharrison's attack on Art Pope's tustworthiness, or as CitOp's opinions of George Soros.

Finally, it should be noted that scharrison, as an active contributor to BlueNC, has a vested stake in seeing any criticism of his compatriot wiped off the books.

If Dome would edit the title, I would have no objection; it was a bit overboard, but I can no longer edit it myself. The content, however, i feel is valid.

Protzman -- Somehow I figured you couldn't handle a little two-sided discourse. I hope the arguments you have on your blog sustain your "intellect", vast as it may be. A normal argument on BlueNC, viz,

"James_Protzman: I really hate Richard Burr;
ObamaFan919: No, you're wrong, I hate him more;
EllieKinnairdRoxMySox07: No, you're both wrong, we should take all the energy we put into hating Richard Burr, and instead love our President."

FIN

Scharrison -- Unless you've not been paying attention, the only Republicans left to investigate are Steve Troxler and Cherie Berry, and I highly doubt the two of them are doing anything fishy. There are literally no other Republicans with power; what use is it investigating those without power.

Point taken, scharrison, but as I mentioned earlier, the people in power right now are the Democrats, and it's appropriate that they be under scrutiny. The idea that Merritt's foundation would have greater incentive to investigate them doesn't bother me in the slightest. As a Democrat, I want to see my party clean up its act, and I don't see that happening by within-the-ranks action.

As for medical marijuana, I'd be a big fan of such a prescription, but I don't think it's going to help what's ailing us just at the moment. What we need is something to stiffen the spines of state workers to speak out against abuses by the fat cats in power. Those fat cats, currently, are Democrats, and everyone who works for the state knows that the abuses are there and are tolerated by the Governor.

The N&O has performed a valuable public service in its investigations into Easley's abuses, but we need all the help we can get.

Les, please take a look at these for profit medical corporations hooked on goverment subsidies to delivery profits to their shareholders

This thread has caused me to delete my Dome bookmark, take some aspirin, and move over to the other side of the intertubes. That's because engaging in an exchange here is like jamming my foot into a pneumatic log-splitter. Not fun. Not productive. Not even good for starting a fire.

Ya'll have fun yelling at each other without me. I surrender to your collective wisdom and wish you all the best.

James

Merritt said they will act in a "nonpartisan manner". As of 17:30 July 1, 2009, they have yet to act. Your claims are baseless, and are mere speculation. Good job in being close-minded and prejudiced.*

* Which, under dictionary definition, is "a preconceived judgment or opinion, or an adverse opinion formed without grounds or before sufficient knowledge"

"To do so is intellectual dishonesty, and it borders quite frankly on intellectual fraud."

Which brings me back to this thread we're talking on. To promote an organization as being a "non-partisan watchdog", while staffing it and funding it from an admittedly partisan source, is more than just bordering on intellectual fraud, it's crashing that border and running amok.

So, scharrison, what this comes down to is what CitOp has beens saying all along. You don't like Pope because you disagree with him.

Too many people, on the left and the right, have a smugness about them that screams "I have a surplus of ego in comparison to the relative demand for my opinion."

No matter what, you're not right -- none of us are right -- about any of these issues. We're arguing over policy and politics that you have no way of knowing the correctness of your opinions, or how your opinions would effect the world at large.

So, what it comes down to is that we're arguing about who is more correct. Keeping this in mind, and remembering that you are not right, and can never be right (only possibly "more right"), then people like Pope are needed.

People like Pope provide the other side of the argument. By allowing Pope's ideas to battle those of groups like, for instance, Public Policy Polling (which is cited as neutral like many of Pope's appendages), or SEANC, or even the Democrat party which has controlled this state for 111 years, then we are more likely, as a society, to find the right result.

As a sidenote, I will admit that I think Pope's ideas are "more right" than the left's; that being stated, scharrison, you shouldn't assert the correctness of your views anymore on this or any other legitimate place of public discussion. To do so is intellectual dishonesty, and it borders quite frankly on intellectual fraud.

And I think I made my point to Sharrison and James as they have bowed out of this thread - and as far as cdtew - man he is a smart guy - someone should listen to him...because he actually is IMPRESSIVE with his knowledge and ability to think with logic!

Poor ole CitOp, getting all worked up and batting wildly. So I'm supposed to revere everything printed in the NY Times -- the magazine that was all hot and heavy in favor of going into Iraq? Hmmmmmmm.

Well, I know that you enjoy making unwarranted assumptions and clinging to unreliable stereotypes, but I remain unimpressed.

Does anyone have Soros' address handy? I really do need to send him a thank-you note.

Your post is meaningless. The French Stock Market regulatory authority is obviously not the group charged with determining Soros' guilt or innocence.

In addition, the affirmative defense under the SEC would not apply here unless you had the evidence to say that Soros' trade was made without any care whatsoever to who purchased the company. In the evidence presented by both parties to the court, it was clear that the only reason Soros bought the securities was because of who would be purchasing SG in the event it was taken over.

Its a fine line, and I don't see either of us determining his guilt or innocence with the certainty you have based on newspaper clippings and our own impassioned bias. You don't know the key information involved -- "who knew what, and when did they know it."

The French stock market regulatory authority investigated the matter separately and concluded that Soros had not violated the law or any ethical rules

- Soros' attorney.

The rule also sets forth several affirmative defenses or exceptions to liability. The rule permits persons to trade in certain specified circumstances where it is clear that the information they are aware of is not a factor in the decision to trade, such as pursuant to a pre-existing plan, contract, or instruction that was made in good faith.

- SEC

bnartist, have you even read what you cited?

First, Insider trading is a very complex and large realm of law; however, unless you've plowed through the entire transcript of Mr. Soros' trial, and have viewed all the evidence stacked against him, I'd say you're in no better a position than me to claim he's guilty.

First, legal insider trading most often occurs when members of a company's board or the company's officers buy and sell shares of securities. Soros was neither for Societe General.

Second, the only substantive difference between legal and illegal insider trading is evidentiary.

The problem with the Soros case is this: Soros doesn't deny that he received inside information about the privatization of Societe General; he merely says that such information was publicly known. What is a fact is that at the time of privatization, it was NOT publicly known who would acquire Societe General and on what conditions. In the U.S., this is prosecutable insider trading, dependent on many many complex factors.

Isaac -

Your citation of a magazine article doesn't impress me, since you know as well as I that finding articles to denounce public figures is not a challenging task. Geez, maybe you'll cite a poll to prove your next assertion.

I hate to tell you that the link I provided was to the NY Times - the liberal gospel of all that is holy and true...

Blinded by the light...

Double standard!

Actually, bnartist, what he was prosecuted for is absolutely prosecuted in United States courts; the insider information he received may in fact lead to criminal liability for insider trading in U.S. courts, depending on the attendant evidence.

He would not have been prosecuted, however, because the length of time involved would likely violate Due Process in the U.S.

Either way, just because the statute of limitations says you can't be prosecuted, doesn't mean you didn't commit the crime!

If you are going to call George Soros corrupt you'll have to do it in French only and you'll also have to wait for the result of his appeal to the European Court. The French case was brought 14 years after the fact and concerns a specific and unique interpretation of French law that would not be prosecutable under US law. The appeal is still pending.

Soros does more for freedom, democracy and humanity in a year than Art Pope will ever do in a lifetime. The comparison is absurd not least because Soros is not involved in state politics in NC. Pope is actively engaged in using multiple entities to influence NC media and policy makers to move state politics in a conservative direction. These entities with obscured provenance coordinate attacks on Democrats, their policies and moderate Republicans. These entities are different manifestations of the same conservative agenda in NC creating the illusion of broad support and consensus. These entities refer to each other to simulate peer support and validation. The intellectual incest often gets past the media filters.

I'm delighted that Mr. Soros sees fit to pump money into organizations that further my agenda. THANK YOU, Mr. Soros!!!!

I could really care less about Soros - just a quick example of how Art Pope is brutally criticized while the Democrats forget they have their own sugar daddy pimping them out for his agenda...

If you were actually reading BlueNC instead of listening to the voices inside your head, you'd know I'm an unaffiliated flaming liberal and equal opportunity critic of Republicans and Democrats alike.

Sure Merritt has done some good things, but he also used his office and state resources for partisan gain in furthering his own campaign. The fact that everybody else does it is no defense, and that's doubly true when the person in question is the State Auditor.

I'm well aware that Pope does some good things, and I'm happy to applaud him for that. For example, I applaud his contributions to the SPCA.

But he also has a clear agenda to shrink government to fit in Grover Nordquist's bathtub. His "think tanks" are quite happy to cherry-pick facts, exaggerate, misrepresent reality, and otherwise lie to achieve partisan ends. And again, just because everyone else does it, doesn't make it right. Especially when one of his think tanks is purporting to represent ethics in government.

Finally, Pope's brush with electioneering charges filed by Richard Morgan stank to high heaven. With his RLM PAC, he walked right up to the line of criminal behavior, and many believe he may have crossed it. In my opinion, it was only through the incompetence of the state elections board that he got off. Were his actions illegal? The board said no. Were they within the bounds of fair and ethical behavior? Some would say no to that, too, including me.

So you'll forgive me for being skeptical of Merritt and his new sugar daddy ... just another free market extremist who can't get a real job.

Hmm. Well, as a left-wing liberal, I'm not thrilled to see Pope's name connected to anything, but am hopeful that Frank Perry and Les Merritt have something worthwhile to offer the public. I guess we'll see. That is, I HOPE we'll see.

Just as conservatives hate to see the name George Soros - which as one of your own put it...

As far as Soros himself, I have a big problem with American business interests influencing our diplomacy and foreign policy abroad, especially in the smaller nations where that money wields great influence. And George Soros is one of the biggest players in that game.

How come no "liberals" complain about his record profits and his "evil" rich enterprises...is that a another double standard?

You might be being naieve. This is typical of conservative maneuvering to appear to take the high road while pursuing political ends. I'd be willing to bet that the only politicians this organization will investigate are democrats.

Sorry Sharrison - tooo funny on the wingers - for the sheer comic relief of that post - I will just categorize you as a "liberal"...