Pelosi's "Most Ethical & Transparent" Congress

[California Girl]

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.

This was the 'change' they 'hoped' for? Less ethical? I guess we know from the lack of responses from the left to this thread that dishonesty and deteriorating standards are ok, as long as they're in charge.

 

[Vanquish]

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.

 

[California Girl]

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.

That source provides information for governments across the world. They all take that research as legitimate. It is widely quoted as the source for ethics and transparency in governments... in every major newspaper and magazine. Governments use their data to measure their own success or failure and identify areas for improvement. Their data is used by the US and every European nation. In fact, every legitimate government around the world relies on their data.

Your response is pathetic partisan bullshit.

 

[Vanquish]

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.

There 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. 2 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

Methodology p. 3 of 9

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.

 

[California Girl]

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.

There 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. 2 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

Methodology p. 3 of 9

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.

Our own government accepts it. Every government accepts it. Their data has been used - on this very board - to criticize Israel, among others. Interesting how, because it doesn't suit the liberal agenda, suddenly it's not legitimate. What a fucking crock. Liberals used their data to hammer Bush - it was good enough for you then. What goes around, comes around. Suck it up.

 

[Vanquish]

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.

 

[California Girl]

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.

No, I wasn't. I was entertained by the data.... in light of Pelosi's promise to run the most ethical and transparent congress in the history of the USA. She did not.... according to the research. I would have done the exact same thing had it been a Republican who promised something so fucking stupid.

I go on what the research says. It is accepted by every major Government, every media outlet, other researchers use it. It is THE source for ethics. First of all you try attacking the source, that failed. So now you attack me, that fails. What are you gonna try now? Magic?

 

[Vanquish]

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.

 

[California Girl]

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.

 

[Vanquish]

so ... you're evading again. wonderful.

 

[California Girl]

so ... you're evading again. wonderful.

I'm not evading. Nor am I crying "Liberal" "Liberal"... that's your imagination. Nothing to do with me. I'm simply stating facts. The research is accepted by everyone. Except, apparently, you. No doubt you know much more than the rest of the planet. Personally, I'll accept the evidence as legitimate.... since every news organization uses that information in relevant articles. People quote those articles - on this board - and everyone accepts the research as valid. Until it does not suit your agenda. Clearly, you are the partisan here. Not I. I accept it as a comment about the previous congress. I will equally accept it about the next one.... no matter what it says.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The index is a survey NOT limited to the U.S. Congress so it's meaningless and worthless to support your claim.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

 

[Dr.House]

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.

The irony meter is pegged with that post....

 

[California Girl]

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.

Actually, I read it. Several times. I know exactly what it says. Fact is.... this information is used by news media to hold governments accountable. The left used this source as a stick to beat Bush. So, why is it now not legitimate? You cannot have it both ways.

This is the source for measuring government ethics and transparency. Accepted by every major news organization..... and it is actually really funny that - suddenly - the research is flawed.... because its results don't suit the left's agenda. That is so fucking pathetic.

 

[editec]

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.

 

[California Girl]

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.

 

[Vanquish]

Don't trip...patting yourself on the back for being the last bastion of objectivity there.

It's a fucking opinion poll. I never gave it any credibility before, so it's not hypocritical to keep the same opinion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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....

Do you believe this survey is an accurate measure of the U.S. House of Representatives ethics and transparency?

If so, explain to us why, specifically, with substantive and relevant references to the survey.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Show us a list of who, for decades, have accepted this survey as an accurate measure of the transparency and ethics, SPECIFICALLY, of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Barring any meaningful evidence in that regard, your above proclamation is baseless, and therefore worthless.