Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No i dont think they were pure. They also did not claim to be the most ethical and transparent either.
Its one thing when a skunk turns out to be just a skunk. Its another when you think and or are told your cute new kitty is a cat..and turns out to be nothing but a stinking skunk.
As to peosoi, i think she is a lying sack of shit.
And that is my point. I don't recall any previous Speakers making such a stupid promise... and I am surprised that even the liberals seem unconcerned about the deterioration of our congressional standards of ethics. Sad.
All part of that hope and change thing ya know.
I'm a little circumspect of any group that claims validity, yet uses the word "methodology" - which people mistakenly use in place of the word "method". Putting that aside for a moment...
This source you cite is based in large part on "opinion surveys" - opinion surveys, really?? Furthermore, the questionnaires distributed could be rife with all kinds of political shenanigans as they aren't hard science of any particular kind.
When people are answering "On a scale of 1-6 how do you feel..." then I'm sorry, I'm not trusting the results as being objective.
To quote you..."you can take that to the bank" lmao. This is your amazing, objective source?
The confidence interval section is wonderful too. It basically shows that we're dealing with subjective opinions...again.
It's hilarious that you throw up a study that is at its core subjective...and try to turn it into some objective mirror of corruption.
You might want to re-read (or actually read probably) the "methodology" (*snicker*) section of the pdf again. You've got egg on your face.
Methodology p. 2 of 9There are two different types of sources. The first one is business people opinion
surveys. The second one is assessments (scores) of a country’s performance as
provided by a group of country/risk/expert analysts.
Methodology p. 3 of 9“To what extent are there legal or political penalties for officeholders who abuse their
positions?”
• [10-9] As a rule, corrupt officeholders are prosecuted rigorously under established
laws.
• [8-6] As a rule, corrupt officeholders are prosecuted under established laws but
also slip through political, legal or procedural loopholes.
• [5-3] Corrupt officeholders are not prosecuted adequately under the law but
occasionally attract adverse publicity.
• [2-1] Officeholders can exploit their offices for private gain as they see fit without
fear of legal consequences or adverse publicity.
“To what extent can the government successfully contain corruption?
• [10-9] All integrity mechanisms are reasonably effective. They are actively
supported by the government.
• [8-6] Most integrity mechanisms are functioning, albeit partly with limited
effectiveness. The government provides almost all integrity mechanisms.
• [5-3] Some integrity mechanisms are implemented. Often, they remain ineffective;
their operation is impeded by private interests. The government’s motivation and
capacity to implement reforms is mixed.
• [2-1] Portions of the state are controlled by private interest groups; reform is
impeded by private interests, rendering most integrity mechanisms nonexistent or
ineffective
No it's not. I don't care who the fuck uses it. The logic of "lots of people like it, so it must be true" is a logical fallacy. "A billion chinamen can't be wrong?"
An opinion poll is subject to TONS of human error, darlin. And you keep sidestepping that fact.
Methodology p. 2 of 9There are two different types of sources. The first one is business people opinion
surveys. The second one is assessments (scores) of a countrys performance as
provided by a group of country/risk/expert analysts.
Methodology p. 3 of 9To what extent are there legal or political penalties for officeholders who abuse their
positions?
[10-9] As a rule, corrupt officeholders are prosecuted rigorously under established
laws.
[8-6] As a rule, corrupt officeholders are prosecuted under established laws but
also slip through political, legal or procedural loopholes.
[5-3] Corrupt officeholders are not prosecuted adequately under the law but
occasionally attract adverse publicity.
[2-1] Officeholders can exploit their offices for private gain as they see fit without
fear of legal consequences or adverse publicity.
To what extent can the government successfully contain corruption?
[10-9] All integrity mechanisms are reasonably effective. They are actively
supported by the government.
[8-6] Most integrity mechanisms are functioning, albeit partly with limited
effectiveness. The government provides almost all integrity mechanisms.
[5-3] Some integrity mechanisms are implemented. Often, they remain ineffective;
their operation is impeded by private interests. The governments motivation and
capacity to implement reforms is mixed.
[2-1] Portions of the state are controlled by private interest groups; reform is
impeded by private interests, rendering most integrity mechanisms nonexistent or
ineffective
These are opinions...not matter how you try to re-characterize them. Weak. Ass. Bullshit.
I'm a centrist. I don't give a fuck who wins or loses as long as the best ideas get to the top.
This entire post was started as partisan bullshit so don't come tryin' to bat me down. It won't work.
WTF. You keep crying liberal! Liberal!! I'm not. I'm a fucking centrist (I keep typing it so mabye you'll learn Engwrish and read it)
I didn't use it to criticize Bush. You must have been smoking pot at that point. Might want to accuse people of doing shit that they ACTUALLY do.
You were being partisan when you posted it....just own up to it, not-so-Tricky bitch.
I've lost at neither. Magic...or rather misdirection...seems to be your tactic.
You've failed to discuss the validity of opinions...nor their subjective nature. Talk about that and I might think you weren't partisan when you made your post.
Or...you can continue to deflect with witty little comments about magic ...avoiding the subjectivity of opinions.
so ... you're evading again. wonderful.
I'm sure we all remember Ms Pelosi vowing to run "the most ethical and transparent Congress in history". Well, she has not. And now, we have the evidence to state it as fact, not an opinion.
My source, and I won't keep it 'secret', it is the world renowned and respected, Transparency International says this "... the following countries showed an improvement from 2009 to 2010: Bhutan, Chile, Ecuador, FYR Macedonia, the Gambia, Haiti, Jamaica, Kuwait, and Qatar. The following countries showed deterioration from 2009 to 2010: the Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Madagascar, Niger and the United States."
We now rank just 22nd in the world with a ranking of 7.1 for ethics and transparency. So, my Democrat friends, are you still going to beat up the previous Administration and ignore the utterly contemptible behavior of this one?
Transparency International - the global coalition against corruption
Read it and weep.
I've lost at neither. Magic...or rather misdirection...seems to be your tactic.
You've failed to discuss the validity of opinions...nor their subjective nature. Talk about that and I might think you weren't partisan when you made your post.
Or...you can continue to deflect with witty little comments about magic ...avoiding the subjectivity of opinions.
I don't really care whether you think I'm partisan. Funnily, most posters acknowledge that I am as likely to kick the ass of the GOP as I am the Dems. And, if you were intelligent, you would notice that I criticized Pelosi and Pelosi alone for the bullshit. She made a bullshit promise - that the left jumped all over like dogs on a bitch - and completely ignore the fact that she did not fulfill her promise. Also, the judgement is on congress - all of it - not just the dems or the republicans. Both.
And.... as the research is accepted by governments, and everyone else.... you cannot decide otherwise because the results don't suit you.
I've lost at neither. Magic...or rather misdirection...seems to be your tactic.
You've failed to discuss the validity of opinions...nor their subjective nature. Talk about that and I might think you weren't partisan when you made your post.
Or...you can continue to deflect with witty little comments about magic ...avoiding the subjectivity of opinions.
I don't really care whether you think I'm partisan. Funnily, most posters acknowledge that I am as likely to kick the ass of the GOP as I am the Dems. And, if you were intelligent, you would notice that I criticized Pelosi and Pelosi alone for the bullshit. She made a bullshit promise - that the left jumped all over like dogs on a bitch - and completely ignore the fact that she did not fulfill her promise. Also, the judgement is on congress - all of it - not just the dems or the republicans. Both.
And.... as the research is accepted by governments, and everyone else.... you cannot decide otherwise because the results don't suit you.
Most posters acknowledge that you're a vapid poser.
I've lost at neither. Magic...or rather misdirection...seems to be your tactic.
You've failed to discuss the validity of opinions...nor their subjective nature. Talk about that and I might think you weren't partisan when you made your post.
Or...you can continue to deflect with witty little comments about magic ...avoiding the subjectivity of opinions.
I don't really care whether you think I'm partisan. Funnily, most posters acknowledge that I am as likely to kick the ass of the GOP as I am the Dems. And, if you were intelligent, you would notice that I criticized Pelosi and Pelosi alone for the bullshit. She made a bullshit promise - that the left jumped all over like dogs on a bitch - and completely ignore the fact that she did not fulfill her promise. Also, the judgement is on congress - all of it - not just the dems or the republicans. Both.
And.... as the research is accepted by governments, and everyone else.... you cannot decide otherwise because the results don't suit you.
Most posters acknowledge that you're a vapid poser.
You obviously didn't even take the 10 minutes I just did to look at this survey or you would have discovered that it is compiled from perceptions of the ENTIRE PUBLIC SECTOR of a country.
Transparency in government?
Come on!
I don't care what POL tells you they're going to do that, none of them are serious about it.
I don't really care whether you think I'm partisan. Funnily, most posters acknowledge that I am as likely to kick the ass of the GOP as I am the Dems. And, if you were intelligent, you would notice that I criticized Pelosi and Pelosi alone for the bullshit. She made a bullshit promise - that the left jumped all over like dogs on a bitch - and completely ignore the fact that she did not fulfill her promise. Also, the judgement is on congress - all of it - not just the dems or the republicans. Both.
And.... as the research is accepted by governments, and everyone else.... you cannot decide otherwise because the results don't suit you.
Most posters acknowledge that you're a vapid poser.
The irony meter is pegged with that post....
Transparency in government?
Come on!
I don't care what POL tells you they're going to do that, none of them are serious about it.
You miss my point. I didn't expect anything better... but the Dems make a big fucking deal about who's honest and whining at the GOP.... and completely ignore the cold hard facts about their own crap.
Now, suddenly, the research - which has been accepted for decades - is 'flawed'. It's laughable. I despise double standards.
