46% of Americans Think Poltiticans are Corrupt.

[Wry Catcher]

If you can't separate the corporate world from politics then you are indeed simple of mind.

Corporations are self serving entities by definition. Corporations do not have the power of systemic reach that government has.

Politicians are not supposed to be self serving entities and have the power to alter our lives at every level and we all know that all politicians are more concerned with keeping their jobs rather than doing their jobs.

And compare how many corporations get away with tax fraud to the number of pols that do. There is an undeniable concentration of corruption in government.

Greater evil is like being more pregnant. Next time you call someone simple of mind maybe you ought to look in a mirror.

You preception is based on your bias (and possibly because you are simple of, mind? btw, in psyc 101 the first lecture in my freshman year the prof made a point, there is no such thing as a "mind", it is a literary invention).

As for tax fraud, how do you think (excuse the expression) ... why do you believe corporations engage in less fraud than do pols? My answer, because corporations buy members of congress to vote them tax benefits. Does that idea challlenge your brain?

Not at all the fact that politicians can be bought actually proves my point.

The one who accepts a bribe is actually more corrupt than the one offering the bribe. Especially so when the one accepting the bribe is a public servant.

And again corporations and politics are apples and oranges so a comparison is not valid as far as corruption goes for the very simple reason I mentioned earlier so maybe you are actually brain damaged seeing you can't make that distinction.

LOL, your final sentence is a give-away. Human nature is human nature, much as 2 = 2; to offer a bribe and to accept a bribe is a criminal act, by both public employees and private individuals. In fact the system allows elected officials to take money, so called donations, but prohibits bribes, i.e. Quid pro quo. On might posit that all donors are attempting to bribe public officals but unless a public official engages in Quid pro quo voting s/he is acting legally and the private citizens has committed a Felony. Of course intent would be hard to prove in both cases.

Which is why Citizen United v. FEC further encourages the 'bribery' of public officials and is the most dangerous threat to our Republic ever decided by the Supreme Court.

 

[blastoff]

Finally a poll that confirms 54% of Americans are brain dead.

 

[uscitizen]

That means the other 54% are either asleep, ignorant, or a combination of both.

Naah, they are in some way profiting from the corruprion so will not complain.

 

[Two Thumbs]

This can't be right.

Barnum said a sucker is born every minute.

I find it very hard to fathom that we produce at such a slow rate that 54% of us are suckers.


Or is this a "That guy is corrupt but my guy isn't" thing?

gotta kinda laugh at Sallow pointing out Bohner.

Would someone please link that whore from LA that got so pissed off when it got out she sold her vote for $100 million that she stormed the senate floor and declarde she sold it for $300 million. [can't link from this puter]

How dare we call her an over priced whore!!

 

[Skull Pilot]

Greater evil is like being more pregnant. Next time you call someone simple of mind maybe you ought to look in a mirror.

You preception is based on your bias (and possibly because you are simple of, mind? btw, in psyc 101 the first lecture in my freshman year the prof made a point, there is no such thing as a "mind", it is a literary invention).

As for tax fraud, how do you think (excuse the expression) ... why do you believe corporations engage in less fraud than do pols? My answer, because corporations buy members of congress to vote them tax benefits. Does that idea challlenge your brain?

Not at all the fact that politicians can be bought actually proves my point.

The one who accepts a bribe is actually more corrupt than the one offering the bribe. Especially so when the one accepting the bribe is a public servant.

And again corporations and politics are apples and oranges so a comparison is not valid as far as corruption goes for the very simple reason I mentioned earlier so maybe you are actually brain damaged seeing you can't make that distinction.

LOL, your final sentence is a give-away. Human nature is human nature, much as 2 = 2; to offer a bribe and to accept a bribe is a criminal act, by both public employees and private individuals. In fact the system allows elected officials to take money, so called donations, but prohibits bribes, i.e. Quid pro quo. On might posit that all donors are attempting to bribe public officals but unless a public official engages in Quid pro quo voting s/he is acting legally and the private citizens has committed a Felony. Of course intent would be hard to prove in both cases.

Which is why Citizen United v. FEC further encourages the 'bribery' of public officials and is the most dangerous threat to our Republic ever decided by the Supreme Court.

Corruption and legality are two different things just legal and moral are.

You really have a problem seeing differences and nuances in definitions don't you?

If one is admittedly out for his own self interest such as a private business owner and he offers a bribe to a politician, yes it is illegal and yes it is corrupt but for a politician to accept a bribe where he is supposed to be not looking out for his own interests as much as the interests of the public then his acceptance of a bribe so as to harm the public and enrich one man and himself at the expense of others is the more egregious of the two acts and hence more corrupt..

 

[Skull Pilot]

This can't be right.

Barnum said a sucker is born every minute.

I find it very hard to fathom that we produce at such a slow rate that 54% of us are suckers.


Or is this a "That guy is corrupt but my guy isn't" thing?

gotta kinda laugh at Sallow pointing out Bohner.

Would someone please link that whore from LA that got so pissed off when it got out she sold her vote for $100 million that she stormed the senate floor and declarde she sold it for $300 million. [can't link from this puter]

How dare we call her an over priced whore!!

Actually P.T Barnum was falsely given credit for that line

HistoryBuff.com -- P. T. Barnum Never Did Say "There's a Sucker Born Every Minute"

 

[Two Thumbs]

This can't be right.

Barnum said a sucker is born every minute.

I find it very hard to fathom that we produce at such a slow rate that 54% of us are suckers.


Or is this a "That guy is corrupt but my guy isn't" thing?

gotta kinda laugh at Sallow pointing out Bohner.

Would someone please link that whore from LA that got so pissed off when it got out she sold her vote for $100 million that she stormed the senate floor and declarde she sold it for $300 million. [can't link from this puter]

How dare we call her an over priced whore!!

Actually P.T Barnum was falsely given credit for that line

HistoryBuff.com -- P. T. Barnum Never Did Say "There's a Sucker Born Every Minute"

Thanks, I actually knew that. But I think it hammers home the idea since he was a circus man.

 

[KissMy]

Having the printing press to the worlds reserve currency would corrupt most people. Add to that controlling the worlds most powerful military force to back it up.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Not at all the fact that politicians can be bought actually proves my point.

The one who accepts a bribe is actually more corrupt than the one offering the bribe. Especially so when the one accepting the bribe is a public servant.

And again corporations and politics are apples and oranges so a comparison is not valid as far as corruption goes for the very simple reason I mentioned earlier so maybe you are actually brain damaged seeing you can't make that distinction.

LOL, your final sentence is a give-away. Human nature is human nature, much as 2 = 2; to offer a bribe and to accept a bribe is a criminal act, by both public employees and private individuals. In fact the system allows elected officials to take money, so called donations, but prohibits bribes, i.e. Quid pro quo. On might posit that all donors are attempting to bribe public officals but unless a public official engages in Quid pro quo voting s/he is acting legally and the private citizens has committed a Felony. Of course intent would be hard to prove in both cases.

Which is why Citizen United v. FEC further encourages the 'bribery' of public officials and is the most dangerous threat to our Republic ever decided by the Supreme Court.

Corruption and legality are two different things just legal and moral are.

You really have a problem seeing differences and nuances in definitions don't you?

If one is admittedly out for his own self interest such as a private business owner and he offers a bribe to a politician, yes it is illegal and yes it is corrupt but for a politician to accept a bribe where he is supposed to be not looking out for his own interests as much as the interests of the public then his acceptance of a bribe so as to harm the public and enrich one man and himself at the expense of others is the more egregious of the two acts and hence more corrupt..

I give up. You are entitled to your opinion, be it logical or not. In the eyes of the law both would be complict and both would be held accountable. The trier of fact would decide on the punishment if each were found quilty of bribery.

In some circumstances a public official would likely be held to a higher standard and punishment might be greater. As a manager in a law enforcement agency it was common practice to explain to new deputies their behavior would be examined more closely than a private citizen and the consequences for (for example) lying would be termination, be the lie a matter of omission (throwing sand in the umpires eye) or commission.

Which prompts me to ask the question, was President Bush's computation of Scooter Libbys sentence an example of moral relativism?

 

[Immanuel]

LOL, your final sentence is a give-away. Human nature is human nature, much as 2 = 2; to offer a bribe and to accept a bribe is a criminal act, by both public employees and private individuals. In fact the system allows elected officials to take money, so called donations, but prohibits bribes, i.e. Quid pro quo. On might posit that all donors are attempting to bribe public officals but unless a public official engages in Quid pro quo voting s/he is acting legally and the private citizens has committed a Felony. Of course intent would be hard to prove in both cases.

Which is why Citizen United v. FEC further encourages the 'bribery' of public officials and is the most dangerous threat to our Republic ever decided by the Supreme Court.

Corruption and legality are two different things just legal and moral are.

You really have a problem seeing differences and nuances in definitions don't you?

If one is admittedly out for his own self interest such as a private business owner and he offers a bribe to a politician, yes it is illegal and yes it is corrupt but for a politician to accept a bribe where he is supposed to be not looking out for his own interests as much as the interests of the public then his acceptance of a bribe so as to harm the public and enrich one man and himself at the expense of others is the more egregious of the two acts and hence more corrupt..

I give up. You are entitled to your opinion, be it logical or not. In the eyes of the law both would be complict and both would be held accountable. The trier of fact would decide on the punishment if each were found quilty of bribery.

In some circumstances a public official would likely be held to a higher standard and punishment might be greater. As a manager in a law enforcement agency it was common practice to explain to new deputies their behavior would be examined more closely than a private citizen and the consequences for (for example) lying would be termination, be the lie a matter of omission (throwing sand in the umpires eye) or commission.

Which prompts me to ask the question, was President Bush's computation of Scooter Libbys sentence an example of moral relativism?

I hate to say this, but here I disagree with you. It seems to me that a corporate manager who is caught doing something illegal is generally prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Where as a politician, say Charles Rangel, end up with no more than some bad publicity for a few months and then go about their lives without thinking twice about what they have done.

Immie

 

[Avatar4321]

Politicians represent the people. If we as a people were less corrupt, the politicians would be less corrupt.

Of course, these figures are fairly disturbing. They show that over half of Americans don't believe our politicians are corrupt. What the heck is with that?!

 

[Skull Pilot]

LOL, your final sentence is a give-away. Human nature is human nature, much as 2 = 2; to offer a bribe and to accept a bribe is a criminal act, by both public employees and private individuals. In fact the system allows elected officials to take money, so called donations, but prohibits bribes, i.e. Quid pro quo. On might posit that all donors are attempting to bribe public officals but unless a public official engages in Quid pro quo voting s/he is acting legally and the private citizens has committed a Felony. Of course intent would be hard to prove in both cases.

Which is why Citizen United v. FEC further encourages the 'bribery' of public officials and is the most dangerous threat to our Republic ever decided by the Supreme Court.

Corruption and legality are two different things just legal and moral are.

You really have a problem seeing differences and nuances in definitions don't you?

If one is admittedly out for his own self interest such as a private business owner and he offers a bribe to a politician, yes it is illegal and yes it is corrupt but for a politician to accept a bribe where he is supposed to be not looking out for his own interests as much as the interests of the public then his acceptance of a bribe so as to harm the public and enrich one man and himself at the expense of others is the more egregious of the two acts and hence more corrupt..

I give up. You are entitled to your opinion, be it logical or not. In the eyes of the law both would be complict and both would be held accountable. The trier of fact would decide on the punishment if each were found quilty of bribery.

In some circumstances a public official would likely be held to a higher standard and punishment might be greater. As a manager in a law enforcement agency it was common practice to explain to new deputies their behavior would be examined more closely than a private citizen and the consequences for (for example) lying would be termination, be the lie a matter of omission (throwing sand in the umpires eye) or commission.

Which prompts me to ask the question, was President Bush's computation of Scooter Libbys sentence an example of moral relativism?

Do you really think a corrupt pol who takes a bribe from one businessman will not take bribes from a hundred others? A private citizen only has a limited number of pols to bribe where a pol has an unlimited number of bribes to accept.

The corrupt pol is the worst offender.

 

[California Girl]

"98% of Americans are honest, hard working people. We elect the other 2%."

 

[Vlad_Russian]

99% of Russians too think Poltiticans are Corrupt. Сapitalists always corrupt.

 

[California Girl]

99% of Russians too think Poltiticans are Corrupt. Сapitalists always corrupt.

Communism didn't work out too well though either, did it?

 

[Colin]

In Britain we don't THINK our politicians are corrupt...we KNOW they are corrupt!

 

[Article 15]

ONLY 46%?

Yikes.....

 

[Divine Wind]

a whopping 85% of voters think most members of Congress are more interested in helping their own careers than in helping other people. That’s a record high for surveys stretching back to early November 2006. Only seven percent (7%) believe most of the legislators are more interested in helping others.

I think there are enough safeguards in our system to prevent corruption, but I guess it depends on how one defines corruption. I think they were "legal", but the system itself is broken due to the inordinate power of special interests. The recent Supreme Court ruling allowing Super PACs isn't helping and only Congress can fix it. Will they? I doubt it.

As for the 85%, I'm with them. Our Congress is more "do nothing" than previous ones. They're more worried about reelection than doing their duty.

 

[Steelplate]

I have to agree with the fact that our system promotes corruption in politicians. The only way a person can get elected to office is to accept "donations". These donations come with a price.

Now we have SUPERPACS that have zero oversight, Zero limitations, and total anonymity. You want to get to the bottom of corruption, look no further.

 

[ba1614]

99% of Russians too think Poltiticans are Corrupt. Сapitalists always corrupt.

Communism didn't work out too well though either, did it?

Don't you love idiots that come from assbackwards places like russia condemning America?
America has it's issues, undoubtedly, but it's still much much better than most of the world.