After the SEC, the IRS. Make your predictions.

[Teancum]

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

No kidding. Talk about ridiculous stereotyping. I am not a government employee but all of my coworkers are. They do their work as well as anyone I’ve worked with in the private sector. “Suckling at the federal test”? Give me a break. 

@smac97recent post was mostly a politically biased diatribe.

[ttribe]

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

No kidding. Talk about ridiculous stereotyping. I am not a federal government employee but all of my coworkers are. They do their work as well as anyone I’ve worked with in the private sector. “Suckling at the federal test”? Give me a break. 

Indeed. I've had occasion to interact with people from the Department of Justice and the FBI, and they are hardworking, intelligent, and professional.

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Well, that just revealed a bias that helps explain the derision with which you've treated the SEC's work on this case.

I've never seen private citizens praise the SEC.  I have, however, seen plenty of instances of the SEC - and various other regulatory agencies that comprise the Administrative State - engage in some pretty troubling behavior.

Here, the SEC's say-so seems . . . pretty decent.  I give it no particular benefit of the doubt, but the matter has been settled, so life goes on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Indeed. I've had occasion to interact with people from the Department of Justice and the FBI, and they are hardworking, intelligent, and professional.

My nephew works for the Department of Justice. He’s freaking brilliant. But apparently he’s just another BYU grad suckling from the federal teat. 

Edited March 3, 2023 by jkwilliams

[ttribe]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I've never seen private citizens praise the SEC.  I have, however, seen plenty of instances of the SEC - and various other regulatory agencies that comprise the Administrative State - engage in some pretty troubling behavior.

Here, the SEC's say-so seems . . . pretty decent.  I give it no particular benefit of the doubt, but the matter has been settled, so life goes on.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't know who you're interacting with in terms of 'private citizens,' but I've worked with large public companies who dealt with the SEC and, while they may have had differences of opinion, they did not resort to personal attacks on the character of the SEC's staff based on where they got their paycheck. That strikes me as a very ignorant statement on your part.

Edited March 3, 2023 by ttribe

[Teancum]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I've never seen private citizens praise the SEC.  I have, however, seen plenty of instances of the SEC - and various other regulatory agencies that comprise the Administrative State - engage in some pretty troubling behavior.

Here, the SEC's say-so seems . . . pretty decent.  I give it no particular benefit of the doubt, but the matter has been settled, so life goes on.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well let's just eliminate all security laws that came about from abuses in the 1920s and 1930s and eliminate the SEC that was set up to protect the average investor.  You seem to hate the "administrative state" much of which is set up to protect us.  Given the complex modern world we live in do you really expect the very few elected officials the manage everything without the assistance of the various federal agencies?

[smac97]

Just now, ttribe said:

Indeed. I've had occasion to interact with people from the Department of Justice and the FBI, and they are hardworking, intelligent, and professional.

The DOJ and the FBI are not regulatory agencies, and are therefore not part of the Administrative State, so there's that.

And FWIW, the credibility and the FBI are not exactly pristine these days:

FBI Whistleblowers: What Their Disclosures Indicate About the Politicization of the FBI and Justice Department

Some excerpts:

Quote

This report details the problems, as recounted in whistleblower disclosures and other forms, that undermine the FBI’s fundamental law-enforcement mission. Whistleblowers describe the FBI’s Washington hierarchy as “rotted at its core,” maintaining a “systemic culture of unaccountability,” and full of “rampant corruption, manipulation, and abuse.” Whistleblowers describe how the FBI has abused its law-enforcement authorities for political purposes, and how actions by FBI leadership show a political bias against conservatives. For example: 

• The FBI is artificially inflating statistics about domestic violent extremism in the nation. Whistleblowers have described how FBI leadership is pressuring line agents to reclassify cases as domestic violent extremism even if the matter does not meet the criteria. They also explained how the FBI is misrepresenting the scale of domestic violent extremism nationwide by categorizing January 6th-related investigations as organic cases stemming from local field offices, instead of all related to one single incident. In both ways, the FBI is fueling the Biden Administration’s narrative that domestic violent extremism is the biggest threat to our nation.
• The FBI is abusing its counterterrorism authorities to investigate parents who spoke at school board meetings. Whistleblowers disclosed how, shortly after the National School Boards Association urged President Biden to use the Patriot Act against American parents, the FBI Counterterrorism Division set up a special “threat tag” to track school board-related cases. Whistleblowers provided evidence of how the FBI opened investigations into one mom for allegedly telling a local school board “we are coming for you” and a dad simply because he “rails against the government” and “has a lot of guns.”
• The FBI has abused its foreign intelligence authorities to spy on American citizens, including people associated with the campaign of President Trump in 2016. These facts have been documented in Inspector General reports and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court opinions, but there is little indication the FBI has changed—or is willing to change—course.
• The FBI is clearing the Bureau of employees who dissent from its woke, leftist agenda. The FBI is actively seeking to “purge” FBI employees holding conservative views—or, in President Biden’s view, those who are a “threat to American democracy”1— because they hold conservative views. The FBI has even taken retaliatory actions against at least one whistleblower who has spoken out.
• Whistleblowers have explained how the FBI’s “political meddling” “is dragging the criminal side [of the Bureau] down” as resources are “pulled away” from real law-enforcement duties. As a prime example, one whistleblower described how he was “told that child sexual abuse material investigations were no longer an FBI priority and should be referred to local law enforcement agencies” so that he could work a Washington-directed politically charged case instead. Such a mis-prioritization is not only a dereliction of duty, but it is a grave disservice to the victims of crimes that do not advance the FBI’s political agenda.

I applied to the FBI.  Twice.  In retrospect, I am glad I stayed in the private sector.

I love the United States, and I am grateful for its government.  But I do not presumptively and axiomatically trust the government, particularly the regulatory agencies in the Executive Branch.

• List of FBI controversies
• Boston FBI office set the standard for incompetence
• ACLU: More About FBI Spying
• Whistleblowers’ Reports Reveal Double Standard In Pursuit Of Politically Charged Investigations By Senior FBI, DOJ Officials
• A brief history of the FBI’s meddling in US politics

And oh, so many more.

I'm glad to hear you had a good experience.  But there is essentially no "housecleaning" apparatus within the federal government, apart from some few (and presently unavailable) political options.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

15 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I don't know who you're interacting with in terms of 'private citizens,' but I've worked with large public companies who dealt with the SEC and, while they may have had differences of opinion, they did not resort to personal attacks on the character of the SEC's staff based on where they got their paycheck. That strikes me as a very ignorant statement on your part.

People generally don’t go around praising people who enforce laws. Most encounters with people who enforce law should be done in a more defensive mindset. Acting like it should be the norm for people to have happy encounters with the FBI, the SEC, and the IRS is just silly.

Of course if you are poisoned with a bunch of propaganda by weirdos who preach law and order while trying to tear down the ability to safeguard anything you end up with a lot of cognitive dissonance. It has been funny watching the military, the FBI, and the like go from being champions to “woke”. The frog in the pot hasn’t realized how hot it has gotten.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

The DOJ and the FBI are not regulatory agencies, and are therefore not part of the Administrative State, so there's that.

And FWIW, the credibility and the FBI are not exactly pristine these days:

FBI Whistleblowers: What Their Disclosures Indicate About the Politicization of the FBI and Justice Department

Some excerpts:

I applied to the FBI.  Twice.  In retrospect, I am glad I stayed in the private sector.

I love the United States, and I am grateful for its government.  But I do not presumptively and axiomatically trust the government, particularly the regulatory agencies in the Executive Branch.

• List of FBI controversies
• Boston FBI office set the standard for incompetence
• ACLU: More About FBI Spying
• Whistleblowers’ Reports Reveal Double Standard In Pursuit Of Politically Charged Investigations By Senior FBI, DOJ Officials
• A brief history of the FBI’s meddling in US politics

And oh, so many more.

I'm glad to hear you had a good experience.  But there is essentially no "housecleaning" apparatus within the federal government, apart from some few (and presently unavailable) political options.

Thanks,

-Smac

There’s a difference between not automatically trusting the government and disparaging it for having the unmitigated gall to fine your church. 

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Well let's just eliminate all security laws that came about from abuses in the 1920s and 1930s

I have not suggested anything remotely like that.

16 minutes ago, Teancum said:

and eliminate the SEC that was set up to protect the average investor. 

I haven't suggested that, either.

16 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You seem to hate the "administrative state" much of which is set up to protect us. 

I don't "hate" it.  I don't trust it.  I think it has been heavily corrupted.  I think its very existence contravenes basic constitutional principles.

16 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Given the complex modern world we live in do you really expect the very few elected officials the manage everything without the assistance of the various federal agencies?

No.  But nor do I think that an endlessly growing, and largely unaccountable, and increasingly corrupt and incompetent, bureaucracy such as the Administrative State is the answer, either.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

The DOJ and the FBI are not regulatory agencies, and are therefore not part of the Administrative State, so there's that.

And FWIW, the credibility and the FBI are not exactly pristine these days:

FBI Whistleblowers: What Their Disclosures Indicate About the Politicization of the FBI and Justice Department

Some excerpts:

I applied to the FBI.  Twice.  In retrospect, I am glad I stayed in the private sector.

I love the United States, and I am grateful for its government.  But I do not presumptively and axiomatically trust the government, particularly the regulatory agencies in the Executive Branch.

• List of FBI controversies
• Boston FBI office set the standard for incompetence
• ACLU: More About FBI Spying
• Whistleblowers’ Reports Reveal Double Standard In Pursuit Of Politically Charged Investigations By Senior FBI, DOJ Officials
• A brief history of the FBI’s meddling in US politics

And oh, so many more.

I'm glad to hear you had a good experience.  But there is essentially no "housecleaning" apparatus within the federal government, apart from some few (and presently unavailable) political options.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm plenty aware of the various controversies (both real and imagined). What I find telling is that you respond to criticism of your biased assessments of the quality of Federal employees, by offering more criticisms. I better understand the lens through which you've been mounting a significant portion of your 'defense' of the Church in this instance.

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I don't know who you're interacting with in terms of 'private citizens,' but I've worked with large public companies who dealt with the SEC and, while they may have had differences of opinion, they did not resort to personal attacks on the character of the SEC's staff based on where they got their paycheck. That strikes me as a very ignorant statement on your part.

What "personal attacks" are you talking about?

Again, the paeans glorifying the Administrative State are pretty weird.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

I have not suggested anything remotely like that.

I haven't suggested that, either.

I don't "hate" it.  I don't trust it.  I think it has been heavily corrupted.  I think its very existence contravenes basic constitutional principles.

No.  But nor do I think that an endlessly growing, and largely unaccountable, and increasingly corrupt and incompetent, bureaucracy such as the Administrative State is the answer, either.

Thanks,

-Smac

Your assertion that the government is increasingly corrupt and incompetent is a political statement, not fact. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

What "personal attacks" are you talking about?

Again, the paeans glorifying the Administrative State are pretty weird.

Thanks,

-Smac

Nobody is glorifying the administrative state. Again, I don’t think even you take yourself seriously anymore. 

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

The DOJ and the FBI are not regulatory agencies, and are therefore not part of the Administrative State, so there's that.

And FWIW, the credibility and the FBI are not exactly pristine these days:

FBI Whistleblowers: What Their Disclosures Indicate About the Politicization of the FBI and Justice Department

A politicized report from the Republican staff of the Judiciary committee? You are getting your facts from Congress telling you without evidence? Are you insane?

Glancing at the report is it a bunch of question begging conclusions thrown out with the hope that the volume will be convincing. This is just silly.

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, Teancum said:

@smac97recent post was mostly a politically biased diatribe.

I just cited the ACLU.  Hardly a bastion of right-wing conservatism:

Quote

The FBI has a long history of abusing its national security surveillance powers. The potential for abuse is once again great, particularly given that the lines between criminal investigations and foreign intelligence operations have been blurred or erased since 9/11. As a result, intrusive surveillance tools originally developed to target Soviet spies are increasingly being used against Americans.

I'm far less interested in partisan politics than I am in opposing corruption, incompetence, abuse of power, etc. by the organs of the State.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What "personal attacks" are you talking about?

Again, the paeans glorifying the Administrative State are pretty weird.

Thanks,

-Smac

Why do you only think in extremes? No one is "glorifying" anything. I'm pointing out you have an inherent bias in your assessment of the quality of the work performed by the SEC in this matter. It's plain as day.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

I just cited the ACLU.  Hardly a bastion of right-wing conservatism:

I'm far less interested in partisan politics than I am in opposing corruption, incompetence, abuse of power, etc. by the organs of the State.

Thanks,

-Smac

Politics doesn’t have to be partisan. As many have noted, the political spectrum is U-shaped. 

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What "personal attacks" are you talking about?

Again, the paeans glorifying the Administrative State are pretty weird.

Thanks,

-Smac

Defending the administrative state from ridiculous unsupported accusations is not glorifying it. This isn’t a binary thing where it must be pristine and flawless or secretly abducting children for satanic rituals.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I'm far less interested in partisan politics than I am in opposing corruption, incompetence, abuse of power, etc. by the organs of the State.

I don’t believe you.

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Defending the administrative state from ridiculous unsupported accusations is not glorifying it. This isn’t a binary thing where it must be pristine and flawless or secretly abducting children for satanic rituals.

Speaking of which, I think I'm behind on my quota for my current level of "Mormon Apostate." I'm hoping to be upgraded to "Deep State Initiate" by the end of 2023.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ttribe said:

Speaking of which, I think I'm behind on my quota for my current level of "Mormon Apostate." I'm hoping to be upgraded to "Deep State Initiate" by the end of 2023.

I had my initiation when I was working for the White House. It was awesome. 

[ttribe]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

I had my initiation when I was working for the White House. It was awesome. 

Lucky (said in Napoleon Dynamite voice)

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Speaking of which, I think I'm behind on my quota for my current level of "Mormon Apostate." I'm hoping to be upgraded to "Deep State Initiate" by the end of 2023.

Try sacrificing more goats to Asmodeus.

[ttribe]

20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Try sacrificing more goats to Asmodeus.

I was thinking chickens might be more cost effective, but your point is an excellent one.