• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

George Will guilty of conflict of interest

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,209
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
George Will never mentions he has a connection to Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty.

George Will guilty of conflict of interest - The Washington Post

In a Nov. 19 piece, Washington Post columnist George Will wrote some nice things about an outfit called theWisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL), a group that litigates in the areas of “property rights, the freedom to earn a living, voting rights, regulation, taxation, school choice, and religious freedom.” This nonprofit is fighting what Will terms a Justice Department attempt to destroy the school-choice program in Wisconsin.

“The Justice Department’s perverse but impeccably progressive theory can be called ‘osmotic transfer,’” writes Will. “It is called this by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL), which is defending Wisconsin children against Washington’s aggression. The department’s theory is: Contact between a private institution and government, however indirect or attenuated the contact, can permeate the private institution with public aspects, transferring to it, as if by osmosis, the attributes of a government appendage.”


Will is railing against the Justice Department’s directive that Wisconsin’s state education bureaucracy take “stronger steps to ensure children with disabilities are enrolled and served properly by private voucher schools,” according to a May 2013 story in the Journal Sentinel. The columnist writes, “The federal government is attempting to order the state to require the choice schools to choose between the impossible and the fatal — between offering services they cannot afford or leaving the voucher program.” WILL is pushing back, with arguments that Will endorses.


snip



h/t MMfA
 
Ok, seriously, this is one of the more ****ing stupid complaints ever. George Will is a pundit. He is under no obligation to be impartial. He does not claim to be impartial. Whether he is connected to the group or not has no bearing on whether his arguments are valid or not. Posting stupid **** like this just makes liberals look bad. Please stop.
 
Ok, seriously, this is one of the more ****ing stupid complaints ever. George Will is a pundit. He is under no obligation to be impartial. He does not claim to be impartial. Whether he is connected to the group or not has no bearing on whether his arguments are valid or not. Posting stupid **** like this just makes liberals look bad. Please stop.

I concur except about the part where you said "please stop."
 
I don't think his connection to this group is the driving force behind his ideas about school choice for children with disabilities. If you know much about his family (including his very-accomplished ex-wife) you would understand it's a great deal more complicated, heartfelt, and thoughtful than a connection to ILL.

Mr. Wemple is guilty of presuming that money has been the driving force of Will's interest in disability rights and school choice, when in fact, he and his entire family have had quite a bit of weight in the discussion for well over 30 years.
 
Last edited:
The acronym spells out WILL. A coincidence? I think not.
 
Ok, seriously, this is one of the more ****ing stupid complaints ever. George Will is a pundit. He is under no obligation to be impartial. He does not claim to be impartial. Whether he is connected to the group or not has no bearing on whether his arguments are valid or not. Posting stupid **** like this just makes liberals look bad. Please stop.
Sorry Redress, what he is doing is not ethical. I do not represent all liberals, I represent myself. When you generalize like that you sound like a conservative.
 
Wait, so he cites WILL in his article, and the complaint is that he didn't disclose that he is a board member of a foundation which gives grants to WILL?

Pretty lame attack, considering there is at least a full layer of separation. And one that probably wouldn't have been brought up if their names weren't conveniently similar.
 
The acronym spells out WILL. A coincidence? I think not.

Heh, no kidding.

Personally, I'm more amused that the discussion seems to ignore the more realistic context for Will's disagreement about what is proper education law. I suppose it would be too much to ask a fellow Washington Post writer to know more about his colleague.
 
Sorry Redress, what he is doing is not ethical. I do not represent all liberals, I represent myself. When you generalize like that you sound like a conservative.

Of course it is ethical. He is under no legal nor ethical obligation to reveal his connections, and who pays him has no bearing on the validity of his arguments. Saying this does not make me sound conservative, it makes me sound like some one who thinks for themselves instead of letting Media Matters do it.
 
Heh, no kidding.

Personally, I'm more amused that the discussion seems to ignore the more realistic context for Will's disagreement about what is proper education law. I suppose it would be too much to ask a fellow Washington Post writer to know more about his colleague.

What do you do when you cannot argue against what some one says? You argue against the person saying it.
 
Sorry Redress, what he is doing is not ethical. I do not represent all liberals, I represent myself. When you generalize like that you sound like a conservative.

Not sure what you're saying here, Pete, but both sides are equally apt to generalize. Besides, no need to be so nasty to Redress by calling him a conservative :2razz:.
 
Pbrauer guilty of seeking wrong-wing censorship by way of slander

What do you do when you cannot argue against what some one says? You argue against the person saying it.

Or, as liberals are increasingly wont to do, you attack his right to say what it is that you don't like him saying.
 
Re: Pbrauer guilty of wanting to censor opinions that he doesnot like

Or, as liberals are increasingly wont to do, you attack his right to say what it is that you don't like him saying.

Or as conservatives are won't to do, just make **** up.
 
Sorry Redress, what he is doing is not ethical. I do not represent all liberals, I represent myself. When you generalize like that you sound like a conservative.

You'll **** bricks when you see it.
 
Re: Pbrauer guilty of wanting to censor opinions that he doesnot like

Or as conservatives are won't to do, just make **** up.

I disagree that conservative will not make **** up. They do it all the time.
 
See what exactly?

First,

Nelson_Ha-Ha.webp

You said, "Don't do what I'm about to do, because then you'll look like me and some people for whom I have no respect."

The hypocrisy is so blatant that I'm not a bit surprised it had to be pointed out.
 
Re: Pbrauer guilty of wanting to censor opinions that he doesnot like

I disagree that conservative will not make **** up. They do it all the time.

You mean like Obama picking up snails on the golf course and eating them on the spot - sucking the buggers right out of their shells? Like that?
 
Re: Pbrauer guilty of wanting to censor opinions that he doesnot like

I think Red meant to type wont ... not won't

Yeah, stupid autocorrect...
 
Sorry Redress, what he is doing is not ethical. I do not represent all liberals, I represent myself. When you generalize like that you sound like a conservative.

This is one of the most unintentionally funny statements I've ever read. Thank you for not thinking about what you are typing, it made my day.
 
Ok, seriously, this is one of the more ****ing stupid complaints ever. George Will is a pundit. He is under no obligation to be impartial. He does not claim to be impartial. Whether he is connected to the group or not has no bearing on whether his arguments are valid or not. Posting stupid **** like this just makes liberals look bad. Please stop.

Right on all points
 
When you generalize like that you sound like a conservative.

You're right... Applying common sense observations to state the obvious, would lead anyone to associate that person with conservatism... So I can understand your confusion Pete.
 
Back
Top Bottom