The solution to corrution is little helicopters.

[SwimExpert]

"I'm demanding reform and declaring a voter's rebellion in a manner consistent with Jefferson's description of rights in the Declaration of Independence," he wrote in his letters. "As a member of Congress, you have three options. 1. You may pretend corruption does not exist. 2. You may pretend to oppose corruption while you sabotage reform. 3. You may actively participate in real reform."

FAA investigating Florida mailman s landing of gyrocopter on U.S. Capitol lawn Tampa Bay Times


So, how do you feel about corruption?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Has our government ever not been corrupt? If not, and we've never known it to be any other way, it shouldn't bother us too much.

 

[defcon4]

Has our government ever not been corrupt? If not, and we've never known it to be any other way, it shouldn't bother us too much.

Should we not address the issue?

 

[FA_Q2]

The problem is not the money in politics. The problem is that it is profitable to ‘donate’ to your politician. Take that away and you will not have a problem. Leave that in place and all the finance reform you can muster will not mean a damn thing – they will find a way around it.

 

[defcon4]

Mr. Hughes was just delivering the mail to each member of Congress. He, as a former mail carrier for the USPS was well qualified to do just that. He put USPS logo on his gyro-copter to make his flight a "semi official" post office business.
I applaud him for his reckless bravery to draw attention.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Has our government ever not been corrupt? If not, and we've never known it to be any other way, it shouldn't bother us too much.

Should we not address the issue?

How? If politicians are mostly corrupt to one degree or another and you need their aquiessence to make new laws to combat corruption, dya really expect a victory?

 

[SwimExpert]

The problem is not the money in politics. The problem is that it is profitable to ‘donate’ to your politician.

Right. So, like I said. It's money in politics.....

 

[defcon4]

Has our government ever not been corrupt? If not, and we've never known it to be any other way, it shouldn't bother us too much.

Should we not address the issue?

How? If politicians are mostly corrupt to one degree or another and you need their aquiessence to make new laws to combat corruption, dya really expect a victory?

Delta, you are not one of the mindless dumb fucks (It doesn't mean you are not just a little weird as I see it) as I realized by many of your posts on serious issues. I agree it is hard to piss against the wind and not get it blown back on us but one step would be term limit for congress.

 

[FA_Q2]

The problem is not the money in politics. The problem is that it is profitable to ‘donate’ to your politician.

Right. So, like I said. It's money in politics.....

No. Go back and read it again. There is a big difference. You are trying to treat the SYMPTOM rather than the cause and that is not effective.

 

[g5000]

The problem is not the money in politics. The problem is that it is profitable to ‘donate’ to your politician.

Right. So, like I said. It's money in politics.....

Nope. The problem is not money. The problem is we have given too much power to our government. Money simply goes where the power is.

Take away the power, and there is no incentive to capture it with cash.

The more you concentrate power in one place, the easier you make it to capture. It is easier to buy one Congress than it is to buy 50 state legislatures.

If a government official does not have the power to do favors for special interests, then those special interests have no incentive to give him cash.

Stop trying to cure the symptom and start curing the disease!

 

[g5000]

In the near future, liberals are going to be wailing and whining about special interests buying control of politicians who control the direction of ObamaCare and screwing over the population, and they will think this is another "money in politics" problem.

The liberals just never figure it out.

 

[Iceweasel]

The government is very corrupt. And the gyro guy is a retard. Unions force people to join them or not work, then they give money to their politicians of choice. That's as wrong as it can be and should be illegal.

A group of people owning a business and funding whoever they want isn't any of your fucking business any more than the government can tell you who to support.

 

[SwimExpert]

Nope. The problem is not money. The problem is we have given too much power to our government. Money simply goes where the power is.

Take away the power, and there is no incentive to capture it with cash.

Which means that money is power.

The more you concentrate power in one place, the easier you make it to capture. It is easier to buy one Congress than it is to buy 50 state legislatures.

If a government official does not have the power to do favors for special interests, then those special interests have no incentive to give him cash.

Stop trying to cure the symptom and start curing the disease!

What you are saying is equivalent to saying that rape is a symptom of women dressing provocatively.

 

[SwimExpert]

The problem is not the money in politics. The problem is that it is profitable to ‘donate’ to your politician.

Right. So, like I said. It's money in politics.....

No. Go back and read it again. There is a big difference. You are trying to treat the SYMPTOM rather than the cause and that is not effective.

Your exact words: "The problem is that it is profitable to ‘donate’ to your politician."

That is money. Plain and simple. No way around it. Stop trying to tap dance around into some nonsensical semantics game. Saying "Well, it's not money, per se, that's the problem. It's the exchange of money that's the problem, and the fact that people get something out of doing it" is a ridiculous attempt to over-nuance the situation into absurdity.

 

[g5000]

What you are saying is equivalent to saying that rape is a symptom of women dressing provocatively.

Nope.

Why does someone give a politician money? Because that politician can do something for them.

Ergo, if a politician cannot do something for them, they have no incentive to give them money.


Figure it out! Whenever you give a politician power, someone is going to buy it from him.

 

[Iceweasel]

What you are saying is equivalent to saying that rape is a symptom of women dressing provocatively.

Nope.

Why does someone give a politician money? Because that politician can do something for them.

Ergo, if a politician cannot do something for them, they have no incentive to give them money.


Figure it out! Whenever you give a politician power, someone is going to buy it from him.

Wrong. Not everyone thinks like you. sometimes people support a candidate because they share similar values. Left and right. And it isn't only Republicans that business support. There should be no law against like minded people sending in donations for whatever cause they choose. Democrats aren't going to pass any legislation to cut them off either, and it's been ruled on by the highest court so it's much ado about nothing.

 

[SwimExpert]

In the near future, liberals are going to be wailing and whining about special interests buying control of politicians who control the direction of ObamaCare and screwing over the population, and they will think this is another "money in politics" problem.

The liberals just never figure it out.

Obamacare was a perfect example of money in politics. The insurance lobby was the chief force behind it's creation.

 

[SwimExpert]

What you are saying is equivalent to saying that rape is a symptom of women dressing provocatively.

Nope.

Why does someone give a politician money? Because that politician can do something for them.

Ergo, if a politician cannot do something for them, they have no incentive to give them money.


Figure it out! Whenever you give a politician power, someone is going to buy it from him.

So, anarchy is your solution. No government, no more problem.

 

[defcon4]

What you are saying is equivalent to saying that rape is a symptom of women dressing provocatively.

Nope.

Why does someone give a politician money? Because that politician can do something for them.

Ergo, if a politician cannot do something for them, they have no incentive to give them money.


Figure it out! Whenever you give a politician power, someone is going to buy it from him.

So, anarchy is your solution. No government, no more problem.

I don't know, maybe having a "general election fund" and candidates would get the money from it equally distributed among the parties, private donations strictly go only to the "general fund" and not to individual candidates or specific parties.

 

[FA_Q2]

The problem is not the money in politics. The problem is that it is profitable to ‘donate’ to your politician.

Right. So, like I said. It's money in politics.....

No. Go back and read it again. There is a big difference. You are trying to treat the SYMPTOM rather than the cause and that is not effective.

Your exact words: "The problem is that it is profitable to ‘donate’ to your politician."

That is money. Plain and simple. No way around it. Stop trying to tap dance around into some nonsensical semantics game. Saying "Well, it's not money, per se, that's the problem. It's the exchange of money that's the problem, and the fact that people get something out of doing it" is a ridiculous attempt to over-nuance the situation into absurdity.

No, its not. Again (as you keep ignoring it) you are addressing the SYMPTOM. Money does not buy politics for shits and giggles - it does so to access the power to maximize profit and minimize competition. That is why the money is there. Create all the finance reform you want and the monied interest will flow ion with another deal. Perhaps a 7 figure job waiting after the term is up or a 10 million dollar gift to your brother. It does not matter - the fact is that the corruption will continue until you deal with that root of the problem - the power that the government is selling in the first place.

It is not a difference in nuance or semantics. It is a difference in cutting the cancer out or placing a band-aid over it.