Ricketts Family Annoyance Thread

[CBStew]

From the Daily Beast:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/17/joe-ricketts-superpac-attack-s-true-victim-wrigley-field.html

Animated by disdain for President Obama, Joe Ricketts, the billionaire founder of TD Ameritrade Inc., is zealously forging ahead with a $12 million series of ads to support Mitt Romney and Republican congressional candidates despite the fact that his effort further complicates an important business proposition of his own children, according to sources at Chicago's City Hall.








The proposition is the desperately needed upgrade of Wrigley Field, home of the Chicago Cubs, which is owned by the family of billionaire Ricketts and overseen by his four kids, notably Tom Ricketts, a bright and mild-mannered team chairman whose politics are decidedly more moderate than his deeply conservative father. Indeed, sister Laura Ricketts is an unabashed Obama supporter and fundraiser.



The father's move, a City Hall source indicated, will further raise doubts among African-American and other legislators whose votes would be mandatory for approval of government assistance.



Word originally leaked in May that the father was plotting a $10 million super-PAC campaign to attack Obama, in part over the president's past ties to the hyperbolic Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's onetime pastor and a favorite villain of the right during the 2008 campaign. An aide to Ricketts senior then disavowed the Wright plan and claimed it was not authored by Joe, but rather by consultants acting without his full approval.



As for Tom Ricketts, he made clear, "As chairman of the Chicago Cubs, I repudiate any return to racially divisive issues in this year's presidential campaign or any setting—like my father has."



But Monday's Wall Street Journal confirmed that he would this week start airing an ad campaign, apparently to run in battleground states and to feature supposedly onetime Obama supporters discussing their change of heart and plan to back Romney. The effort is to be funded by Joe Ricketts's own super-PAC and is part and parcel of the huge infusion of money into the presidential race via such PACs and related groups legally approved and further inspired by the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling.



The barrage may or may not hurt the incumbent president. But it seems certain to harm the cause of upgrading Wrigley Field, one of America's beloved, if dilapidated, baseball stadiums. It is a virtual tourist mecca—its popularity enduring even the Cubs' dismal performance on the field this season, which has the club 30 games out of first place going into Monday night's combat. Alderman Tom Tunney, who represents the Wrigley Field neighborhood and has had a prickly relationship with the owners, says Joe Ricketts's campaign was "disturbing for those of us who are backing the president." Asked how Ricketts's move might affect any negotiations to strike a government-supported deal to fund a Wrigley renovation, Tunney put it bluntly: "It certainly doesn't help."

[Chuck to Chuck]

Asked how Ricketts's move might affect any negotiations to strike a government-supported deal to fund a Wrigley renovation, Tunney put it bluntly: "It certainly doesn't help."

What Tunney should have said:

"Joe Ricketts is campaigning against unnecessary government spending. If this is what he wants, and he is my constituent, I shall focus my efforts on keeping the government from spending any money that would needlessly enrich a billionaire like Joe Ricketts.  I'm sure he would agree that he doesn't need any government handouts."

[Brownie]

City Hall has already gone on the record as being against the First Amendment. Come to think of it, Emanuel's former boss has proposed a repeal (or at least a strong curb) on the First Amendment.

The Ricketti shouldn't get state or city money to rebuild Wrigley Field, but the fact that Chicago politicians think that expression of one's political views make a good deal a bad deal shows how low-rent they are.

Asked how Ricketts's move might affect any negotiations to strike a government-supported deal to fund a Wrigley renovation, Tunney put it bluntly: "It certainly doesn't help."

What Tunney should have said:

"Joe Ricketts is campaigning against unnecessary government spending. If this is what he wants, and he is my constituent, I shall focus my efforts on keeping the government from spending any money that would needlessly enrich a billionaire like Joe Ricketts.  I'm sure he would agree that he doesn't need any government handouts."

But of course, Chuck. If Joseph Ricketts can make the City of Chicago to see the light and go 88-12 for Romney, that would be wonderful.

[Gilgamesh]

City Hall has already gone on the record as being against the First Amendment. Come to think of it, Emanuel's former boss has proposed a repeal (or at least a strong curb) on the First Amendment.

The Ricketti shouldn't get state or city money to rebuild Wrigley Field, but the fact that Chicago politicians think that expression of one's political views make a good deal a bad deal shows how low-rent they are.

Asked how Ricketts's move might affect any negotiations to strike a government-supported deal to fund a Wrigley renovation, Tunney put it bluntly: "It certainly doesn't help."

What Tunney should have said:

"Joe Ricketts is campaigning against unnecessary government spending. If this is what he wants, and he is my constituent, I shall focus my efforts on keeping the government from spending any money that would needlessly enrich a billionaire like Joe Ricketts.  I'm sure he would agree that he doesn't need any government handouts."

But of course, Chuck. If Joseph Ricketts can make the City of Chicago to see the light and go 88-12 for Romney, that would be wonderful.

I'm sorry, when did this happen?

[J. Walter Weatherman]

City Hall has already gone on the record as being against the First Amendment. Come to think of it, Emanuel's former boss has proposed a repeal (or at least a strong curb) on the First Amendment.

The Ricketti shouldn't get state or city money to rebuild Wrigley Field, but the fact that Chicago politicians think that expression of one's political views make a good deal a bad deal shows how low-rent they are.

Asked how Ricketts's move might affect any negotiations to strike a government-supported deal to fund a Wrigley renovation, Tunney put it bluntly: "It certainly doesn't help."

What Tunney should have said:

"Joe Ricketts is campaigning against unnecessary government spending. If this is what he wants, and he is my constituent, I shall focus my efforts on keeping the government from spending any money that would needlessly enrich a billionaire like Joe Ricketts.  I'm sure he would agree that he doesn't need any government handouts."

But of course, Chuck. If Joseph Ricketts can make the City of Chicago to see the light and go 88-12 for Romney, that would be wonderful.

I'm sorry, when did this happen?

I suspect TJ is referring to the proposed amendment to overturn Citizens United.

[Brownie]

City Hall has already gone on the record as being against the First Amendment. Come to think of it, Emanuel's former boss has proposed a repeal (or at least a strong curb) on the First Amendment.

The Ricketti shouldn't get state or city money to rebuild Wrigley Field, but the fact that Chicago politicians think that expression of one's political views make a good deal a bad deal shows how low-rent they are.

Asked how Ricketts's move might affect any negotiations to strike a government-supported deal to fund a Wrigley renovation, Tunney put it bluntly: "It certainly doesn't help."

What Tunney should have said:

"Joe Ricketts is campaigning against unnecessary government spending. If this is what he wants, and he is my constituent, I shall focus my efforts on keeping the government from spending any money that would needlessly enrich a billionaire like Joe Ricketts.  I'm sure he would agree that he doesn't need any government handouts."

But of course, Chuck. If Joseph Ricketts can make the City of Chicago to see the light and go 88-12 for Romney, that would be wonderful.

I'm sorry, when did this happen?

I suspect TJ is referring to the proposed amendment to overturn Citizens United.

Yes.

Besides the proposed C.U. Amendment, we can also add other ways in which Obama shows little use for the First Amendment when people use it in ways counter to his interests. Two things immediately come to mind:

-Asking Youtube to remove anti-Muslim video.
-Forcing private, religious-based organization to provide things counter to their religious beliefs.

[Internet Apex]

City Hall has already gone on the record as being against the First Amendment. Come to think of it, Emanuel's former boss has proposed a repeal (or at least a strong curb) on the First Amendment.

The Ricketti shouldn't get state or city money to rebuild Wrigley Field, but the fact that Chicago politicians think that expression of one's political views make a good deal a bad deal shows how low-rent they are.

I agree but don't think this type of behavior is unique to Chicago or Democrats.

[Chuck to Chuck]

but the fact that Chicago politicians think that expression of one's political views make a good deal a bad deal shows how low-rent they are.

No. This is a bad deal, but one they'd be willing to pass to enable handing out a few hundred million in construction projects AND to help out (read: massively enrich) a friendly business owner.

As Joe is showing he isn't friendly, it gets easy to pass on the help part.  Passing it would show they are low-rent.

[Eli]

... Obama shows little use for the First Amendment when people use it in ways counter to his interests.

So, he uses the First Amendment like any other politician. Got it.

[CBStew]

City Hall has already gone on the record as being against the First Amendment. Come to think of it, Emanuel's former boss has proposed a repeal (or at least a strong curb) on the First Amendment.

The Ricketti shouldn't get state or city money to rebuild Wrigley Field, but the fact that Chicago politicians think that expression of one's political views make a good deal a bad deal shows how low-rent they are.

Asked how Ricketts's move might affect any negotiations to strike a government-supported deal to fund a Wrigley renovation, Tunney put it bluntly: "It certainly doesn't help."

What Tunney should have said:

"Joe Ricketts is campaigning against unnecessary government spending. If this is what he wants, and he is my constituent, I shall focus my efforts on keeping the government from spending any money that would needlessly enrich a billionaire like Joe Ricketts.  I'm sure he would agree that he doesn't need any government handouts."

But of course, Chuck. If Joseph Ricketts can make the City of Chicago to see the light and go 88-12 for Romney, that would be wonderful.

I'm sorry, when did this happen?

I suspect TJ is referring to the proposed amendment to overturn Citizens United.

Yes.

Besides the proposed C.U. Amendment, we can also add other ways in which Obama shows little use for the First Amendment when people use it in ways counter to his interests. Two things immediately come to mind:

-Asking Youtube to remove anti-Muslim video.
-Forcing private, religious-based organization to provide things counter to their religious beliefs.

1.  It wouldn't be the first time that the Constitution was amended to correct a mistake.  (e.g.  the 13th amendment, and the 21st amendment)
2.  Asking Youtube to do something is hardly an attack on free speech, prosecuting Youtube would be.
3.  If providing health insurance to one's employees is a violation of the Constitution then the Draft was involuntary servitude.

[Brownie]

City Hall has already gone on the record as being against the First Amendment. Come to think of it, Emanuel's former boss has proposed a repeal (or at least a strong curb) on the First Amendment.

The Ricketti shouldn't get state or city money to rebuild Wrigley Field, but the fact that Chicago politicians think that expression of one's political views make a good deal a bad deal shows how low-rent they are.

Asked how Ricketts's move might affect any negotiations to strike a government-supported deal to fund a Wrigley renovation, Tunney put it bluntly: "It certainly doesn't help."

What Tunney should have said:

"Joe Ricketts is campaigning against unnecessary government spending. If this is what he wants, and he is my constituent, I shall focus my efforts on keeping the government from spending any money that would needlessly enrich a billionaire like Joe Ricketts.  I'm sure he would agree that he doesn't need any government handouts."

But of course, Chuck. If Joseph Ricketts can make the City of Chicago to see the light and go 88-12 for Romney, that would be wonderful.

I'm sorry, when did this happen?

I suspect TJ is referring to the proposed amendment to overturn Citizens United.

Yes.

Besides the proposed C.U. Amendment, we can also add other ways in which Obama shows little use for the First Amendment when people use it in ways counter to his interests. Two things immediately come to mind:

-Asking Youtube to remove anti-Muslim video.
-Forcing private, religious-based organization to provide things counter to their religious beliefs.

1.  It wouldn't be the first time that the Constitution was amended to correct a mistake.  (e.g.  the 13th amendment, and the 21st amendment)
2.  Asking Youtube to do something is hardly an attack on free speech, prosecuting Youtube would be.
3.  If providing health insurance to one's employees is a violation of the Constitution then the Draft was involuntary servitude.

1. You believe the First Amendment was a mistake? Here's hoping enough others disagree. There aren't many places to which I can flee.
2. You or I, private citizens, requesting YouTube to take down a video on whatever grounds is one thing. Asking someone to censor something as a representative of the government has a smell to it.
3. I didn't saying providing health insurance to one's employees is a violation of the Constitution; I said requiring a private entity to pay for something for their employees that they believe is morally wrong on religious grounds flies in the face of Congress being prohibited to make a law infringing on the free exercise of said religion.

It used to be a free country.

[Eli]

It used to be a free country.

Thanks a lot, Obama.

[Gilgamesh]

City Hall has already gone on the record as being against the First Amendment. Come to think of it, Emanuel's former boss has proposed a repeal (or at least a strong curb) on the First Amendment.

The Ricketti shouldn't get state or city money to rebuild Wrigley Field, but the fact that Chicago politicians think that expression of one's political views make a good deal a bad deal shows how low-rent they are.

Asked how Ricketts's move might affect any negotiations to strike a government-supported deal to fund a Wrigley renovation, Tunney put it bluntly: "It certainly doesn't help."

What Tunney should have said:

"Joe Ricketts is campaigning against unnecessary government spending. If this is what he wants, and he is my constituent, I shall focus my efforts on keeping the government from spending any money that would needlessly enrich a billionaire like Joe Ricketts.  I'm sure he would agree that he doesn't need any government handouts."

But of course, Chuck. If Joseph Ricketts can make the City of Chicago to see the light and go 88-12 for Romney, that would be wonderful.

I'm sorry, when did this happen?

I suspect TJ is referring to the proposed amendment to overturn Citizens United.

Yes.

Besides the proposed C.U. Amendment, we can also add other ways in which Obama shows little use for the First Amendment when people use it in ways counter to his interests. Two things immediately come to mind:

-Asking Youtube to remove anti-Muslim video.
-Forcing private, religious-based organization to provide things counter to their religious beliefs.

1.  It wouldn't be the first time that the Constitution was amended to correct a mistake.  (e.g.  the 13th amendment, and the 21st amendment)
2.  Asking Youtube to do something is hardly an attack on free speech, prosecuting Youtube would be.
3.  If providing health insurance to one's employees is a violation of the Constitution then the Draft was involuntary servitude.

1. You believe the First Amendment was a mistake? Here's hoping enough others disagree. There aren't many places to which I can flee.
2. You or I, private citizens, requesting YouTube to take down a video on whatever grounds is one thing. Asking someone to censor something as a representative of the government has a smell to it.
3. I didn't saying providing health insurance to one's employees is a violation of the Constitution; I said requiring a private entity to pay for something for their employees that they believe is morally wrong on religious grounds flies in the face of Congress being prohibited to make a law infringing on the free exercise of said religion.

It used to be a free country.

1.  I believe Stew was referring to that particular decision of the Court's being a mistake, rather than the amendment itself.
2.  The government asking a private company to take down a video that has the serious potential of affecting national security is less pernicious than you make it out to be.
3.  Plenty of Americans don't like tanks, but are forced to pay for them via their taxes.

[Brownie]

City Hall has already gone on the record as being against the First Amendment. Come to think of it, Emanuel's former boss has proposed a repeal (or at least a strong curb) on the First Amendment.

The Ricketti shouldn't get state or city money to rebuild Wrigley Field, but the fact that Chicago politicians think that expression of one's political views make a good deal a bad deal shows how low-rent they are.

Asked how Ricketts's move might affect any negotiations to strike a government-supported deal to fund a Wrigley renovation, Tunney put it bluntly: "It certainly doesn't help."

What Tunney should have said:

"Joe Ricketts is campaigning against unnecessary government spending. If this is what he wants, and he is my constituent, I shall focus my efforts on keeping the government from spending any money that would needlessly enrich a billionaire like Joe Ricketts.  I'm sure he would agree that he doesn't need any government handouts."

But of course, Chuck. If Joseph Ricketts can make the City of Chicago to see the light and go 88-12 for Romney, that would be wonderful.

I'm sorry, when did this happen?

I suspect TJ is referring to the proposed amendment to overturn Citizens United.

Yes.

Besides the proposed C.U. Amendment, we can also add other ways in which Obama shows little use for the First Amendment when people use it in ways counter to his interests. Two things immediately come to mind:

-Asking Youtube to remove anti-Muslim video.
-Forcing private, religious-based organization to provide things counter to their religious beliefs.

1.  It wouldn't be the first time that the Constitution was amended to correct a mistake.  (e.g.  the 13th amendment, and the 21st amendment)
2.  Asking Youtube to do something is hardly an attack on free speech, prosecuting Youtube would be.
3.  If providing health insurance to one's employees is a violation of the Constitution then the Draft was involuntary servitude.

1. You believe the First Amendment was a mistake? Here's hoping enough others disagree. There aren't many places to which I can flee.
2. You or I, private citizens, requesting YouTube to take down a video on whatever grounds is one thing. Asking someone to censor something as a representative of the government has a smell to it.
3. I didn't saying providing health insurance to one's employees is a violation of the Constitution; I said requiring a private entity to pay for something for their employees that they believe is morally wrong on religious grounds flies in the face of Congress being prohibited to make a law infringing on the free exercise of said religion.

It used to be a free country.

1.  I believe Stew was referring to that particular decision of the Court's being a mistake, rather than the amendment itself.
2.  The government asking a private company to take down a video that has the serious potential of affecting national security is less pernicious than you make it out to be.
3.  Plenty of Americans don't like tanks, but are forced to pay for them via their taxes.

1. A poorly-written law means you expand government's power over expression?
2. If someone from the government contacts my place of business and asks me to do/not to do something, I'd be on the phones with my attorneys.
3. Fair, but when an employee (or a student) chooses to work for an institution that is tied with one particular faith or another, is it unreasonable for them (especially victims like a 34-year-old law student) to consider: "If I choose place A, I'd have to understand that benefits, etc., are constrained by its faith; thus, place B might be a better place for me."

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

It used to be a free country.

Thanks a lot, Obama.

Thanks for nuttin', jerk.