house of corruption.

[imported_Shivetya]

Flake then forced votes on pet Murtha projects -- starting with "something called the Concurrent Technologies Corp." in Johnstown. In the brief time at his disposal, Flake tried to explain to an inattentive House how the company survives as an "incubator" for earmarks "just by getting more earmarks." He next challenged a $39 million earmark for the National Drug Intelligence Center in Johnstown, which the Pentagon does not need or want. Murtha was coldly dismissive, denying the reality that these no-bid awards do not allow taxpayers to recapture any benefit that the corporations derive from federal expenditures.


Disgusting... there are a few standout Congressmen there but the bulk are just corrupt, especially the long term Congressmen. Look at the arrogance of these people and realize, that Presidents don't really mean jack shit when the "modern day aristocracy runs America"


The only change the Democrats brought to Congress was which flag was at the top of the dung heap.

 

[Lemon law]

To Shivetya

Political corruption dates back almost to Adam and Eve. But the fallacy you are selling is because one or two isolated incidents are cited, you can conclude nothing has changed other than the squeaker of the house.

When it should be possible to get at least a rough handle on what amounts to the overall corruption level of the house at any one given time. If nothing else, by quantifying earmarks or monitoring various public interest web sites. In short, any running benchmark should allow comparisons over time.

Then its possible to have something meaningful in a post rather than a thesis lacking any real supporting evidence. And in terms of an unbiased poster test, I note you joined anand tech on 7/7/2005. And have 2276 posts since. How many of those posts concerned or addressed what amounted to 100% Republican dominated corruption? You had about 16 months back then to complain about Delay, Nay, Abramoff, and all those fun folks

Sorry too busy to check right now, but at least I am trying to come up ways to test reality.
And as JJ Thompson pointed out, if someone can't put an overall number on something, they just don't know much about it.

 

[Mxylplyx]

I'd say ratio of right leaning people on this forum screaming about corruption during a democratic controlled legistlature is roughy equal to the ratio of left leaning people screaming about corruption during the republican controlled legislature. The left just has a bigger voice on this particular forum, so they screamed louder.

The fact is, the only voices talking about corruption in the house and senate are coming from the right now, and I would venture to say the level of corruption hasnt really changed much. Now I wonder why that is.....could it be political bias??

 

[nageov3t]

all politicians are corrupt. living in hudson county, nj for most of my life, it doesn't even really phase me anymore.

but democrats and republicans still have widely different views and policies.

/shrug.

 

[Lemon law]

Simple logic should tell us the corruption level is down. Before, buying government services was a one stop shop at the Republirat bazzar. And you were good to go from K street and then into the the house, senate, and then even get the complimentary signing pen from GWB himself. And gentlemen like Abramoff, Delay, and Cunningham had it down to a science. But now K street is in transition, the Legislative and executive branches are feuding, and worse yet, you never know what bill to attach your pork to. Pick the wrong bill and the republicans will filibuster and then blame the dimocrats for failing to pass it. But lost in the rhetoric is the fact that all attached pork failed to become law.

The number here screaming about past and present corruption is not what needs measured. What needs measured is the hypothesis that congressional corruption is as bad as it was before 11/06.

 

[Craig234]

I think it's very wrong when Shivetya claims 'no difference', there's a huge difference. Neither party is immune to corruption, but that doesn't mean they're the same or close.

The thing is, some people who are blind ideologues about how 'all politicians are corrupt' think they're not blind ideologues, because they're not on the side of either party, failing to recognize that the so-called 'moderate' position can be blind, too, when it's not based on any solid rational basis.

As for long-term congressman - we need the good ones, IMO. I'm not impressed with Murtha, but where's the corruption of a Henry Waxman? He's a model to me of a great legislator in oversight of government operations, and term limits would simply guarantee a lack of experience and skills among our leaders, transferring power to the bureacrats who are there for a longer time, and to the outsiders who help select who can get elected.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
[Topic Title: house of corruption.

Topic Summary: never EVER claim that Democrats and Republicans are any different.

No one on here has made such a claim other than you and a couple of your best Repoublican supporting bud friends on here.

What many on here, with good reason, have said is that the level in which the destruction and corruption done to the U.S. pales in comparison to what your heroes have done.

They have taken everything to a whole new level of taking down the U.S. all in the name for a buck of personal and Corporate gain.

 

[nageov3t]

I'd vote for a president who would make it a top priority to get term limits for congress enacted in a heartbeat, even if it was someone who was an otherwise scumbag like fred thompson.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: loki8481
I'd vote for a president who would make it a top priority to get term limits for congress enacted in a heartbeat, even if it was someone who was an otherwise scumbag like fred thompson.

And that would be a disaster for the country, as noted above. Thank goodness the constitution seems not to allow it.

 

[senseamp]

Republicans have no ideas left that people will support, so their only hope is to mudsling bring the others down to their level.
Robert Novak is always willing to help. Just ask Valerie Plame.

 

[bobdelt]

Originally posted by: loki8481
all politicians are corrupt. living in hudson county, nj for most of my life, it doesn't even really phase me anymore.

but democrats and republicans still have widely different views and policies.

/shrug.

Not really. I feel there policies are pretty similar, depending on whose in power. When abortion is the hottest topic to seperate the 2, there really isnt much of an idealogical battle.

 

[First]

They're different.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: bobdelt

Originally posted by: loki8481
all politicians are corrupt. living in hudson county, nj for most of my life, it doesn't even really phase me anymore.

but democrats and republicans still have widely different views and policies.

/shrug.

Not really. I feel there policies are pretty similar, depending on whose in power. When abortion is the hottest topic to seperate the 2, there really isnt much of an idealogical battle.

good reading: http://www.boston.com/news/glo.../a_study_in_contrasts/

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: loki8481
I'd vote for a president who would make it a top priority to get term limits for congress enacted in a heartbeat, even if it was someone who was an otherwise scumbag like fred thompson.

And that would be a disaster for the country, as noted above. Thank goodness the constitution seems not to allow it.

Nothing in the Constitution prohibits term limits, nothing in the Constitution requires them.

It seems pretty clear that *professional* politions (as we have now) were not envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

All things have the *ying & yang*, meaning some good and some bad. Sure with term limits we would lose the so-called good experienced polititions. How many of those are there? I suggest term limits would kick out 10 scum bags for every single good politition.

And why is exprience good? For the longest time, experience has only been used for getting earmarks for your state.

We desperately need term limits. And we need it as a Comstitutional amendment, otherwise the polititions will worm their way out of it as they have in the past.

Fern

 

[maverick44]

I am sick of another how all politicians are bad thread...

Politicians are not manufactured in massive clone factories for them to have all the same characteristics.

Every country gets the politicians it deserves.... its up to us to filter the good from the bad

Next time you get pissed at public life, take a look at corporate corruption, or corruption in the bureaucracy.... the list goes on

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: maverick44
I am sick of another how all politicians are bad thread...

Politicians are not manufactured in massive clone factories for them to have all the same characteristics.

Every country gets the politicians it deserves.... its up to us to filter the good from the bad

Next time you get pissed at public life, take a look at corporate corruption, or corruption in the bureaucracy.... the list goes on

Sure they are. It's called law school.

 

[maverick44]

Good one ,

Should I blame corporate corruption on B-schools, judicial corruption on the police academy .. the list goes on

 

[fskimospy]

Well I guess it depends on what you want to call corruption. If you're going to call pork and nasty stuff like that corruption (which I would), then actually the Democratic 110th congress is leaps and bounds better then the Republican 109th that preceded it. (then again, the 109th seems to be widely considered possibly the worst congress of all time).

Citizens Against Government Waste keeps a running tally of pork and other waste, and by their estimation the current congress is the least wasteful in more then 6 years. That might not be great, but it's certainly a large improvement.

So, no. They aren't all the same.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Shivetya
[Topic Title: house of corruption.

Topic Summary: never EVER claim that Democrats and Republicans are any different.

No one on here has made such a claim other than you and a couple of your best Repoublican supporting bud friends on here.

What many on here, with good reason, have said is that the level in which the destruction and corruption done to the U.S. pales in comparison to what your heroes have done.

They have taken everything to a whole new level of taking down the U.S. all in the name for a buck of personal and Corporate gain.

Well, it looks like everyone here is one of his "best Repoublican supporting bud friends", including Craig in the post right above yours. I'm a bit surpised that you are calling Craig a Republican....

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Well I guess it depends on what you want to call corruption. If you're going to call pork and nasty stuff like that corruption (which I would), then actually the Democratic 110th congress is leaps and bounds better then the Republican 109th that preceded it. (then again, the 109th seems to be widely considered possibly the worst congress of all time).

Citizens Against Government Waste keeps a running tally of pork and other waste, and by their estimation the current congress is the least wasteful in more then 6 years. That might not be great, but it's certainly a large improvement.

So, no. They aren't all the same.

Hehe, a little unfair to compare at this point. Let's see what happens when a Dem Pres is elected, along with the Dems controlling both houses of Congress. That's a much better *apples to apples* comparison, a better measure of *self restarint*.

Plus, IMO, the Dem controlled Congress is treading a bit light in anticipation of the upcoming '08 elections. To go beserk with spending right now would be counter-productive and they know it.

Fern

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I think it's very wrong when Shivetya claims 'no difference', there's a huge difference. Neither party is immune to corruption, but that doesn't mean they're the same or close.

The thing is, some people who are blind ideologues about how 'all politicians are corrupt' think they're not blind ideologues, because they're not on the side of either party, failing to recognize that the so-called 'moderate' position can be blind, too, when it's not based on any solid rational basis.

As for long-term congressman - we need the good ones, IMO. I'm not impressed with Murtha, but where's the corruption of a Henry Waxman? He's a model to me of a great legislator in oversight of government operations, and term limits would simply guarantee a lack of experience and skills among our leaders, transferring power to the bureacrats who are there for a longer time, and to the outsiders who help select who can get elected.

And that is one of the biggest fallacies of our system. Why should a person need "political experience" to be a legislature? Read a piece of legislation. Decide if it is in the best interests of the American people/their constituents. Debate the issue. Vote. Introduce your own legislation.

When you get to diplomats and such I can understand the need for political experience but for it to be necessary to vote on or introduce legislation is absurd. Unfortunately, it is almost a necessity in our current system of politics.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Well I guess it depends on what you want to call corruption. If you're going to call pork and nasty stuff like that corruption (which I would), then actually the Democratic 110th congress is leaps and bounds better then the Republican 109th that preceded it. (then again, the 109th seems to be widely considered possibly the worst congress of all time).

Citizens Against Government Waste keeps a running tally of pork and other waste, and by their estimation the current congress is the least wasteful in more then 6 years. That might not be great, but it's certainly a large improvement.

So, no. They aren't all the same.

Hehe, a little unfair to compare at this point. Let's see what happens when a Dem Pres is elected, along with the Dems controlling both houses of Congress. That's a much better *apples to apples* comparison, a better measure of *self restarint*.

Plus, IMO, the Dem controlled Congress is treading a bit light in anticipation of the upcoming '08 elections. To go beserk with spending right now would be counter-productive and they know it.

Fern

I don't think its unfair at all. The only spending bills that Bush has vetoed have not had anything to do with the amount of pork in them. (okay he claimed it for the Iraq funding bill, but any honest assessment of his reasoning would know that he did it because of the timetables, etc.)

And honestly it doesn't matter in the end anyway. Even if it is environmental factors (haha! cross thread intermingling!) then it's still a good thing that the Democrats are in there. The end result has been a vast improvement in government waste.

Personally I just think that the Republicans had been in power too long. Power corrupts and so they had really had too much time to go off the deep end. I honestly believe that as of this moment the Democrats are much much much less corrupt then the Republicans were. The lobbyists haven't had enough time to wrap their tentacles around them. You come back to me 16 years from now, and I bet the Democrats will be up to their asses in horrible crap too. Right now though, they are better. A lot better.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
never EVER claim that Democrats and Republicans are any different.

Ahh... but Republicans ARE differient in at least one way. As of 8/14/07 11:30 am EDT, 3694 American troops have died, and tens of thousands more are wounded, disabled and scarred for life in the Bushwhackos' war of LIES in Iraq.

That same war that has incurred trillions of dollars in current and future debt our great grandchildren will still be paying long after we've left this planet, including the costs of caring for those troops who survive their participation in your Traitor In Chief's futile misadventure.

The only parallel event in our history was in Vietnam, and prizes for both corruption and stupidity go to the Bushwhackos because they had the benefit of that war as a perfect example of why they should never have gone into Iraq.

Bush, himself, had only to see what his father, the former President the more experience with leading a nation into war against Iraq, had to say. In his memoir, A World Transformed (1998), written with Brent Scowcroft, on pp. 489 - 490, George H.W. Bush predicted exactly what has happened:

Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

Sound familiar? :Q If only his idiot son could read!

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Shivetya
never EVER claim that Democrats and Republicans are any different.

Ctrl c

Ctrl v

Damn that shit is getting old Harvey...

 

[piasabird]

I wouldnt mind the house voting for a few pet projects if they actually got something else done. If they will lock down the border, then everyone can have some pork that votes yes.

By projects I mean something real like a bridge or a highway or a school. I dont think we need money to pay off somenone that the tax payer will have nothing in return to show for it. We have a new suspension bridge accross the Mississippi that was built on a lot of taxpayer money in St Louis, MO. I think on most of these projects the State kicks in a big percentage too. However, I think the money should be for necessities like infrastructure. We dont really need another park or a bicycle path. Let the locals pay for those nice to have items. I see nothing wrong with a few public use parks if the public can actually use them.

No security.
No Amnesty.
No Pork.

Start at the top and work your way down.