America drops in Corruption rankings

[gimpy117]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-slips-to-historic-low-in-rb-3603521040.html?x=0
:nope: yeah too bad the average US citizen has known this for some time

[Ducimus]

:nope: yeah too bad the average US citizen has known this for some time

Carlin makes a great point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q&feature=related

[Wolfehunter]

Very true Ducimus

[gimpy117]

Carlin makes a great point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q&feature=related

+1 makes you think. I wonder if I should vote for a candidate who hasn't taken corporate money

[Fish]

Carlin makes a great point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q&feature=related

Yeah a great artist but sadly also a CTer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pow5_UYKaJ8&NR=1

[tater]

Carlin makes a great point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q&feature=related

I disagree with that pretty much entirely (his point about education).

Education fails in the US pretty much entirely due to parents. Involved parents raise more educated kids. Period. Private schools do better not because they are better, not because the kids are smarter, but because the schools select for involved parents (via expensive tuition). That's why "charter" or other public school "choice" facilities have better outcomes. They select for parents that give a crap enough to jump through the hoops to get their kids in the "better" school. The school in question is only "better" because it is filled with kids who have parents that want their kids to learn.

The "bad" schools often have far more dollars spent per student, too. The trouble is the kids are from criminal or single parent homes (likely not divorced, but a "never married mom" who might have kids in the hosue with more than one bio-dad). THAT is the education problem in the US.

This entirely explains the success of middle class school systems (like suburban CT where I went to school). The schools are not better because the towns are "rich" (they ARE rich), they are better because the kind of people that become rich overwhelmingly value education, and the bulk of the kids at school have absorbed this mindset growing up without even realizing it. They don't need private schools, etc, because the "culture" of academic success is already there.

Carlin's diatribe on education is entirely misplaced, IMHO.

[Ducimus]

Carlin is... or rather, was, a comedian at the end of the day. Something to keep in mind. I thought he went a little overboard with the education comments, But he did make *some* good points once in awhile. Like, who really owns and runs this country, and the only reason why we put up with them, is the idea that we might become rich too. The American dream.

Through hard work, and dedication, we might make it big too. That's the American dream isn't it? The equal opportunity to succeed? I find myself credulous at that idea so long as the system is being manipulated by special interests, and corporate dollars. It's all bought, sold and paid for. Hence, the more noticeable corruption in our system as the linked article suggests.

[tater]

+1 makes you think. I wonder if I should vote for a candidate who hasn't taken corporate money

Post a list of every single one running in the US for some significant office.

^^^ not kidding, should be easy to type, there are unlikely to be more than a handful (if even that many)

[Takeda Shingen]

Corruption in politics? Shocking.

[The Third Man]

Corruption when Democrats hold two of three branches of government...shocking!

[Takeda Shingen]

Right. Because politics was the free and clean land of happy bunnies prior to 2006.

[The Third Man]

Right. Past misdeededs justify current misdeeds.

[Takeda Shingen]

Right. Past misdeededs justify current misdeeds.

Right. Pretending that one side is the sole purveryor of political corruption is realistic and sensible.

[The Third Man]

Right. Which is why the Tea Party movement is so influential.

[Ducimus]

Right. Pretending that one side is the sole purveryor of political corruption is realistic and sensible.

That's pretty much what the Nevada election fraud thread is all about. Why I said, "god you guys are hilarious". Each side downplaying their own BS while casting a spotlight on the others. This hard line partisanship is one big circle jerk, with people who are genuinely moderate and/or impartial as the pivot man.

[Takeda Shingen]

So long as the Tea Party continues to be tethered to the Republicans, any real change will be an illusion, as they will continue to function in the Team R voting block. Serious change requires a fracturing of the two-party system. It is my hope that the Tea Party will go this direction, but until they do, they are little more than shills for the Republican Neo-Con establishment, continuing the revolving door of dual-party failure.

[The Third Man]

This hard line partisanship is one big circle jerk, with people who are genuinely moderate and/or impartial as the pivot man.

Genuinely moderate and/or impartial ? No such thing, unless you are dead in a coffin!

[The Third Man]

So long as the Tea Party continues to be tethered to the Republicans, any real change will be an illusion, as they will continue to function in the Team R voting block. Serious change requires a fracturing of the two-party system. It is my hope that the Tea Party will go this direction, but until they do, they are little more than shills for the Republican Neo-Con establishment, continuing the revolving door of dual-party failure.

Christine O'Donnel, a Tea party candidate, is so tied to neo-con.....Karl Rove denounce her.

Your just looking for a boogie-man, but it isn't working,,,,,bud.

[Takeda Shingen]

Christine O'Donnel, a Tea party candidate, is so tied to neo-con.....

Your just looking for a boogie-man, but it isn't working,,,,,bud.

And that's just her problem, isn't it? All successful Tea-ers* are successful only if they recieve the approval of the Republican establishment. So long as they remain members of Team R, they have to play by Team Rs' rules. When I start seeing 'T's on the ballots, I'll start getting excited about them. Until then, it's politics as usual, boogie-men or not.

*I can't really say Tea Party because they aren't really a party unto themselves; they're Republicans. I won't use the pejorative 'Tea Baggers', so Tea-ers will have to do for now.

[The Third Man]

*I can't really say Tea Party because they aren't really a party unto themselves; they're Republicans.

Then you don't understand the Tea Party movement. Or why the Repubs will take congress.

Nancy called them astro turf and could have embrassed them but was .........

[tater]

The world is filled with examples of multi-party systems vs our 2-partty system. I'd like some examples of where the multi-party system has effectively constrained government if I'm going to think positively about it.

Minus a similar party to drain the swamp on the left some, I think we'd simply see a new conservative party guarantee democrat power in perpetuity.

[Takeda Shingen]

Then you don't understand the Tea Party movement. Or why the Repubs will take congress.

Maybe. We'll see for certain soon enough.

EDIT: Referencing the nature of the Tea-ers. That the Republican Party will achieve a majority in The House and parity in the Senate are givens.

[Takeda Shingen]

Minus a similar party to drain the swamp on the left some, I think we'd simply see a new conservative party guarantee democrat power in perpetuity.

Absolutely. Team D must split as well. This is why I have always argued for third, fourth and fifth parties; the more fractured they are, the happier I would be. A coalition government forces rule from the center, not the wings as we see now. That may make certain elements much less happy, but would be the most representative of the people, to whom the goverment is indentured.

[Ducimus]

Genuinely moderate and/or impartial ? No such thing, unless you are dead in a coffin!


And this hardline stance of "your with us or against us", is also a crock of ****. Some of you folks really need to get out this black and white two dimensional view. The world is not flat.

[The Third Man]

And this hardline stance of "your with us or against us", is also a crock of ****. Some of you folks really need to get out this black and white two dimensional view. The world is not flat.


I got news for you. They don't have to try and portray anything. The Tea partiers are doing a good job of it all on their own between this and open carry demonstrations.


And this isn't an opinion/POV/black and white/moderate/impartial? I'm not saying you are wrong on that topic, but it is the afore mentioned, and the world is still round.

[August]

So long as the Tea Party continues to be tethered to the Republicans, any real change will be an illusion, as they will continue to function in the Team R voting block. Serious change requires a fracturing of the two-party system. It is my hope that the Tea Party will go this direction, but until they do, they are little more than shills for the Republican Neo-Con establishment, continuing the revolving door of dual-party failure.

The Tea Party is not a multi-plank political party. There is no Tea Party position on abortion or gun control or any number of other social hot buttons. They are all about stopping government mismanagement and fiscal irresponsibility.

The only tethers they have to the Republican party are:

A: By circumstance (the GoP being the replacements for the group of scoundrels presently in power).

B. The fact that the Democrats, instead of embracing their ideal of fiscal moderation and accountability are doing everything they can to cast the Tea Party as some radical wing of the GoP in order to marginalize both.

The Republicans do not want the Tea Partiers in their ranks any more than the Democrats do, but it's just more difficult for a party that is supposed to be about fiscal responsibility to ignore the movement.

[Ducimus]

And this isn't an opinion/POV/black and white/moderate/impartial? I'm not saying you are wrong but it is the afore mentioned, and the world is still round.

Nowhere did i state my complete thoughts and beleifs. Only bits an pieces of them. Nor do i have to explain my thoughts and beleifs to you, or anyone else.

And you didn't get the (double/ "stabby") metaphor. I'm sure Takeda probably gets it. It flew over your head at 50,000 feet.

[The Third Man]

Nowhere did i state my complete thoughts and beleifs. Only bits an pieces of them. Nor do i have to explain my thoughts and beleifs to you, or anyone else.

And you didn't get the (double/ "stabby") metaphor. I'm sure Takeda probably gets it. It flew over your head at 50,000 feet.

By picking the 'thoughts and beleifs' you post only serves to confirm the falacy of your posts. Because you aren't being truthfull to the membership, or, more importantly to yourself.

[Takeda Shingen]

The Tea Party is not a multi-plank political party. There is no Tea Party position on abortion or gun control or any number of other social hot buttons. They are all about stopping government mismanagement and fiscal irresponsibility.

The only tethers they have to the Republican party are:

A: By circumstance (the GoP being the replacements for the group of scoundrels presently in power).

B. The fact that the Democrats, instead of embracing their ideal of fiscal moderation and accountability are doing everything they can to cast the Tea Party as some radical wing of the GoP in order to marginalize both.

The Republicans do not want the Tea Partiers in their ranks any more than the Democrats do, but it's just more difficult for a party that is supposed to be about fiscal responsibility to ignore the movement.

This is all true, but I feel it is a certainty that these officials will proceed to vote with the Republican block on the issues of gun control, abortion, stem cells, et al; talking like Paleoconservatives and Libertarians but voting like Neo-Cons. Of course, this is all speculation, and we'll have to see what they do in there. For me, I've seen these type of 'revolutions' before, and the past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior.

But, as you alluded to, I think it will be very interesting after the election; regarding both inter-party and intra-party conflict.

[The Third Man]

Let political gridlock prevail! Because that is what the founders wanted.

[Takeda Shingen]

I don't believe that Ducimus has any problems with honesty.

[Aramike]

Excellent points, August.This is all true, but I feel it is a certainty that these officials will proceed to vote with the Republican block on the issues of gun control, abortion, stem cells, et al; talking like Paleoconservatives and Libertarians but voting like Neo-Cons. Of course, this is all speculation, and we'll have to see what they do in there. For me, I've seen these type of 'revolutions' before, and the past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior.

But, as you alluded to, I think it will be very interesting after the election; regarding both inter-party and intra-party conflict.For sure, they most likely will fall into like with social-conservatism, the same way that social liberals constantly fall into line with fiscal irresponsibility.

The difference is that neo-conservatism isn't much more fiscally adept than your typical democrat whereas the Tea Party movement is based upon fiscal responsibility.

Fine, maybe Tea Partiers will adopt the social stances of neo-cons. Those weren't going away anyway. But if they can inject some fiscal responsibility into the party, that's fine by me.

[The Third Man]

I don't believe that Ducimus has any problems with honesty.

Nor do you. But Ducimus said he did. There are lies of omission aswell as comission.

[Ducimus]

By picking the 'thoughts and beleifs' you post only serves to confirm the falacy of your posts. Because you aren't being truthfull to the membership, or, more importantly to yourself.

Truthful to membership? What membership? Poltiical party membership? Forum members? Phhht. Oh and not truthful to myself? Your attempt at psychoanalysis is laughable at best. I know myself, VERY well. You on the other hand, know nothing about me. So to say i'm not truthful to myself is really stupid on your part. Nice try at a dramatic closing sentence though.

Now, I post what i think, when i think it is pertinent, to whatever is at hand. You seem to think that one is obligated to espouse their entire core beliefs in full at every opportunity. I only say what i feel is needed at the time, and no more.

[August]

I feel it is a certainty that these officials will proceed to vote with the Republican block on the issues of gun control, abortion, stem cells, et al; talking like Paleoconservatives and Libertarians but voting like Neo-Cons.

First off stances on those issues are not the province of the Republican party alone. For example plenty of Democrats also oppose gun control. Does that make them secret "neo-cons"?

Speaking of name calling how come you use disparaging terms like "neo-con" and "paleoconservatives" when you purport to be an independent? Those terms, especially in the manner that you use them, are straight out of the DNC handbook.

Second, the Democrats have gone out of their way to make the Tea Party their enemies therefore I would not be surprised that conservatives tend to outnumber liberals in the Tea Party ranks.

[Takeda Shingen]

Excellent points, August.For sure, they most likely will fall into like with social-conservatism, the same way that social liberals constantly fall into line with fiscal irresponsibility.

The difference is that neo-conservatism isn't much more fiscally adept than your typical democrat whereas the Tea Party movement is based upon fiscal responsibility.

Fine, maybe Tea Partiers will adopt the social stances of neo-cons. Those weren't going away anyway. But if they can inject some fiscal responsibility into the party, that's fine by me.

Yes, you're right about all three points, as least as far as I, or any of us can tell before the new Congress is sworn in. How effective they will be, and their ultimate fate, has yet to be seen. They just don't give me a warm fuzzy on the outset.

[Takeda Shingen]

First off stances on those issues are not the province of the Republican party alone. For example plenty of Democrats also oppose gun control. Does that make them secret "neo-cons"?

Speaking of name calling how come you use disparaging terms like "neo-con" and "paleoconservatives" when you purport to be an independent? Those terms, especially in the manner that you use them, are straight out of the DNC handbook.

Second, the Democrats have gone out of their way to make the Tea Party their enemies therefore I would not be surprised that conservatives tend to outnumber liberals in the Tea Party ranks.

PaleoConservatism and NeoConservatism are not pejoratives, nor do I use them as those. They are different brands of conservatism. In short, PaleoConservatism supports the type of free market, limited government capitalism that Libertarians and Tea Party members support. They also support tighter immigration laws limited involvement in foriegn affairs. Ron and Rand Paul, and also commentator Pat Buchanan are good examples of PaleoConservatives. This was the traditional brand of conservatism, hence the prefix Paleo (old). It's counterpart is PaleoLiberalism.

NeoConservatism supports a greater degree of governmental involvement in economics and business. It also boasts a more involved social agenda, a looser immigration policy and heavy involvement in foreign affairs. It is has been the favored brand of conservatism in the Republican Party since it came to forefront in 1994. Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney and commentator Sean Hannity are good examples of Neo-Conservatives. It's counterpart is Neo-Liberalism, more commonly known as Progressivism.

These are not slanderous terms, and I have no idea why you take offense to them. I simply type 'Neo-Con' because I get tired of typing 'Neo-Conservative'. I'll be sure to use the full title from now on.

EDIT: If you need to know, I tend to identify with Paleo-Conservatism. I do not care for foreign involvement, government intervention in the free market, or loose immigration policy. I also have very little interest in social agendas. My decision to leave the Republican Party comes down to the fact that there are so few Paleo-Conservatives left. I admit to having a strong dislike of Neo-Conservatism, as I feel it has corrupted what the Republican Party, and true conservatism, had stood for. Much of my disdain for the Tea Party is also rooted in their clear willingness to play ball with the Neo-Conservatives. I believe that they will ultimately be corrupted by the Republican establishment, and as such I choose not to get on that train.