The Most Corrupt Members Of Congress 9/22/09

[audrey_girl]

Re: The Most Corrupt Members Of Congress 9/22/09

This list is from individual donors as far as I can tell. Below are some links to OpenSecrets.org, great site to dig into donations.

Paul donations

Interesting how most of the money comes from military families, I guess he struck a cord with the folks who didn't want to jump on the liberal anti-war band wagon.

Compare these donations to my own congress-critter from Tennessee:

Jimmie Duncan

Seems old Jimmie has a lot more PAC monies. Paul has almost none.


Also:
Paul's voting record


Just skimming through his record it seems pretty consistent with what I've heard from him. Now I doubt I'd ever vote for him because he's not close enough to my political views, but on first glance he seems less beholden to big money donors than most...a little plus goes in his column.

I couldn't disagree more. I think the military families are supporting Dr. Paul - because they want to get their loved ones out of these idiot wars.

In contrast to Obama, the man has integrity and his voting record shows it.

If he was elected President we would be long gone from the Middle East and be in the process of shutting down our 700+ military bases, gulags and torture cells around the world.

[audrey_girl]

Re: The Most Corrupt Members Of Congress 9/22/09

This list is from individual donors as far as I can tell. Below are some links to OpenSecrets.org, great site to dig into donations.

Paul donations

Interesting how most of the money comes from military families, I guess he struck a cord with the folks who didn't want to jump on the liberal anti-war band wagon.

Compare these donations to my own congress-critter from Tennessee:

Jimmie Duncan

Seems old Jimmie has a lot more PAC monies. Paul has almost none.


Also:
Paul's voting record


Just skimming through his record it seems pretty consistent with what I've heard from him. Now I doubt I'd ever vote for him because he's not close enough to my political views, but on first glance he seems less beholden to big money donors than most...a little plus goes in his column.

sorry - one more post -

I can't help it - I just love this guy - and for reasons like this:



sometimes its like we live in a completely bizarro world, one where those with all the power are fools, charlatens, or complete liars - and this man is the only one up there telling it like it is.

sorry -

i will stop now

[Verrocchio]

Re: The Most Corrupt Members Of Congress 9/22/09

Thread Synopsis (apologies for over-generalizations)

1. Jim Nickerson: Look at all these crooked bastard politicians!
2. Whoo! Look at'em!
3. Not my man in DC; he's not crooked like the rest.
4. Jim Nickerson: Who is he? The White House cook? (good line, Jim)
5. My man, Ron Paul!!!
6. Jim Nickerson: They are all crooks.
7-32. Everybody Else: Not every last one is a crook! Let me give you nuances.
Jim Nickerson: Yes, every damn one!

Comment

IMHO, The point that Jim set out to make, and it is a vital point, was completely lost by Post #3. Given the sorry turn that the US and world has taken, and the faint hope that the democratic process will correct some of the great excesses of the past decade and more, I thought Jim wanted us to to consider the absolutely appalling state of political representation in the US Congress and maybe start thinking about what can be done about it. I don't think he intended to open a debate about Ron Paul's bona fides. If the iTulip community's reaction to blatant political corruption is to quarrel over whether there's one virgin in the biggest whorehouse in the nation, we are in despair.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: The Most Corrupt Members Of Congress 9/22/09

This list is from individual donors as far as I can tell. Below are some links to OpenSecrets.org, great site to dig into donations.

Paul donations

Interesting how most of the money comes from military families, I guess he struck a cord with the folks who didn't want to jump on the liberal anti-war band wagon.

Compare these donations to my own congress-critter from Tennessee:

Jimmie Duncan

Seems old Jimmie has a lot more PAC monies. Paul has almost none.


Also:
Paul's voting record


Just skimming through his record it seems pretty consistent with what I've heard from him. Now I doubt I'd ever vote for him because he's not close enough to my political views, but on first glance he seems less beholden to big money donors than most...a little plus goes in his column.

That is a good link, and thank you for it, neoken. Good in that it shows the breakdown between individuals and PACs contributions, and in comparison to your man (I guess Jimmie is a man), Paul's donations certainly suggest he is not being bought out.

Ghent12, I think the word that just wouldn't pop into your mind is "penchant," not "pension." though I do have one of the latter. Finding words gets harder in my experience as one gets older.

Truth and dishonesty are both capable of making one spend incredible time trying to understand. Probably the best I can think in regard to "truth" is that it is something after which those interested can strive to seek. It is difficult to know if you ever get there.

Dishonesty is easy if it is open enough to attract the attention of others; however, for those clever (and I surmise there are many) uncovering dishonesty in them may fail. The only one who really knows whether one is covertly dishonest is the presumed dishonest person him/herself. And even that supposed recognition could fail in a person with literally no conscience, if such exists.

In my own life I decided a fair while ago that money = control of one's life. The more money, the more potential control one has over many events. Some can/do/will equate having more money to having more power. More money = more power. And someone else has noted power corrupts and absolute power absolutely corrupts. With regard to the last sentiment, if real power doesn't corrupt then it is in my opinion an exception. Politicians have power, and to be successful in American politics (at least to get one's foot into the door) it takes money. If no other way a politician, who isn't rich to begin with, can only get money by stating things, i.e. take positions, that he/she thinks will attract people who at least want to hear such positions as to induce them to cough up money. Whether Paul is really what so many of you here are convinced he is, probably only he knows. And hopefully he is what he appears to be, but one thing he is without any doubt whatsoever is a politician, which to most everything I have come to see over time suggests he may be similar to a bastard at a family reunion. Hopefully he is an honest and pure as many think, and I hope he is. One or two out of 535 is a start, be it ever so weak.

EDIT: But don't forget Paul is a Texan, see my Location for some of his notable Texas compatriots.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: The Most Corrupt Members Of Congress 9/22/09

Thread Synopsis (apologies for over-generalizations)

1. Jim Nickerson: Look at all these crooked bastard politicians!
2. Whoo! Look at'em!
3. Not my man in DC; he's not crooked like the rest.
4. Jim Nickerson: Who is he? The White House cook? (good line, Jim)
5. My man, Ron Paul!!!
6. Jim Nickerson: They are all crooks.
7-32. Everybody Else: Not every last one is a crook! Let me give you nuances.
Jim Nickerson: Yes, every damn one!

Comment

IMHO, The point that Jim set out to make, and it is a vital point, was completely lost by Post #3. Given the sorry turn that the US and world has taken, and the faint hope that the democratic process will correct some of the great excesses of the past decade and more, I thought Jim wanted us to to consider the absolutely appalling state of political representation in the US Congress and maybe start thinking about what can be done about it. I don't think he intended to open a debate about Ron Paul's bona fides. If the iTulip community's reaction to blatant political corruption is to quarrel over whether there's one virgin in the biggest whorehouse in the nation, we are in despair.

Thanks, Verrocchio, I don't go looking for approbation, but occasionally it doesn't hurt to chance upon some.

[rjwjr]

Re: The Most Corrupt Members Of Congress 9/22/09

Thread Synopsis (apologies for over-generalizations)

1. Jim Nickerson: Look at all these crooked bastard politicians!
2. Whoo! Look at'em!
3. Not my man in DC; he's not crooked like the rest.
4. Jim Nickerson: Who is he? The White House cook? (good line, Jim)
5. My man, Ron Paul!!!
6. Jim Nickerson: They are all crooks.
7-32. Everybody Else: Not every last one is a crook! Let me give you nuances.
Jim Nickerson: Yes, every damn one!

Comment

IMHO, The point that Jim set out to make, and it is a vital point, was completely lost by Post #3. Given the sorry turn that the US and world has taken, and the faint hope that the democratic process will correct some of the great excesses of the past decade and more, I thought Jim wanted us to to consider the absolutely appalling state of political representation in the US Congress and maybe start thinking about what can be done about it. I don't think he intended to open a debate about Ron Paul's bona fides. If the iTulip community's reaction to blatant political corruption is to quarrel over whether there's one virgin in the biggest whorehouse in the nation, we are in despair.

Excellent point, Verrocchio, but my eyes have been opened to the fact that the answers just aren't as simple as your summary (and I love simplicity). In another thread of a similar topic, we started talking about "who are the good guys" in Washington. I asked if Ron Paul was a good guy. The answer was basically, Yes, if not a little too Libertarian. Then another iTuliper suggested Kucinich was one of the good guys.

The point is, I see Paul and Kucinich as complete opposites with Paul wanting very limited Federal government and Kucinich wanting far-reaching government scope and involvement. To use your analogy, if we, as intelligent iTulipers', can't even agree on the definition of a virgin, then how can we expect our fellow (less informed) US citizens to agree?

For what it's worth, it's my belief that we need to get back to the Constitution and our founding principles (no Federal Reserve for example) as much as possible. Too many of the "improvements" and "modernization" we have made in our (ego-driven) interpretation and updating of Constitutional principles have resulted in failed activities and a weaker America. So much of what our founding fathers attempted to guard against - especially a too powerful Federal government, too powerful bankers, and too much influence over US affairs by international/foreign parties - has come to pass and seems to be escalating. Let's get back to the original experiment and give those ideals another chance. We've gotten too far off track.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: The Most Corrupt Members Of Congress 9/22/09

Excellent point, Verrocchio, but my eyes have been opened to the fact that the answers just aren't as simple as your summary (and I love simplicity). In another thread of a similar topic, we started talking about "who are the good guys" in Washington. I asked if Ron Paul was a good guy. The answer was basically, Yes, if not a little too Libertarian. Then another iTuliper suggested Kucinich was one of the good guys.

The point is, I see Paul and Kucinich as complete opposites with Paul wanting very limited Federal government and Kucinich wanting far-reaching government scope and involvement. To use your analogy, if we, as intelligent iTulipers', can't even agree on the definition of a virgin, then how can we expect our fellow (less informed) US citizens to agree?

For what it's worth, it's my belief that we need to get back to the Constitution and our founding principles (no Federal Reserve for example) as much as possible. Too many of the "improvements" and "modernization" we have made in our (ego-driven) interpretation and updating of Constitutional principles have resulted in failed activities and a weaker America. So much of what our founding fathers attempted to guard against - especially a too powerful Federal government, too powerful bankers, and too much influence over US affairs by international/foreign parties - has come to pass and seems to be escalating. Let's get back to the original experiment and give those ideals another chance. We've gotten too far off track.

Paul is against abortion, which means to me he is for further unchecked population increases (I'm not even addressing the issue of politicians wishing to put the long arm of the law right up into the uteri of women--the lecherous bastards). One thing that would solve more of the world's problems than any other is having fewer people--people being the greatest threat ever yet to inhabit the planet.

My leanings, had I to vote for a viable candidate would be Kucinich, but either he or Paul would at least, if nothing else changed, probably put the manacles on the Congress, and in stopping them from continuing to fuckup the country that would be a definite step toward progress.

[Rajiv]

Re: The Most Corrupt Members Of Congress 9/22/09

Paul is against abortion, which means to me he is for further unchecked population increases (I'm not even addressing the issue of politicians wishing to put the long arm of the law right up into the uteri of women--the lecherous bastards). One thing that would solve more of the world's problems than any other is having fewer people--people being the greatest threat ever yet to inhabit the planet.

My leanings, had I to vote for a viable candidate would be Kucinich, but either he or Paul would at least, if nothing else changed, probably put the manacles of the Congress, and in stopping them from continuing to fuckup the country that would be a definite step toward progress.

Jim,

I think you would enjoy reading Stephanie Mills' thoughts on this -- "Why I Chose to Be Childless"

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: The Most Corrupt Members Of Congress 9/22/09

Jim,

I think you would enjoy reading Stephanie Mills' thoughts on this -- "Why I Chose to Be Childless"

I read it and thank you. I'm not more enlightened by it, but it might turn on a light bulb, or at least begin a flicker for anyone who is still of child-bearing age, and anyone who is committed to anti-abortion laws in America--though I doubt it. Stupidity almost always wins out over reason.

[Mashuri]

Re: The Most Corrupt Members Of Congress 9/22/09

Quote from Ron Paul, during the Republican Primary debates, regarding abortion:

The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don’t need a federal abortion police. That’s the last thing that we need. There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that’s committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I don’t think that should be up to the president to decide.

What does this tell you? It tells me that 1) Ron Paul is vehemontly against abortion and believes it is murder of a human being. 2) Despite this strong belief, he still would not impose his own will as President, aka Federal power, to enforce.

This guy knows that government cannot be relied on to solve our problems, even if it's a proposed solution that agrees with his personal views.

[Serge_Tomiko]

Re: The Most Corrupt Members Of Congress 9/22/09

And someone else has noted power corrupts and absolute power absolutely corrupts.

No. This is a truism utilized by advocates of democracy, the only system in which money can truly corrupt.

Power does not corrupt, it is the corrupt who seek power.

[cjppjc]

Re: The Most Corrupt Members Of Congress 9/22/09

Can we get a draft Paul movement going?

Would he accept?

Is it too much to ask?

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: The Most Corrupt Members Of Congress 9/22/09

Quote from Ron Paul, during the Republican Primary debates, regarding abortion:

The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don’t need a federal abortion police. That’s the last thing that we need. There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that’s committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I don’t think that should be up to the president to decide.

What does this tell you? It tells me that 1) Ron Paul is vehemontly against abortion and believes it is murder of a human being. 2) Despite this strong belief, he still would not impose his own will as President, aka Federal power, to enforce.

This guy knows that government cannot be relied on to solve our problems, even if it's a proposed solution that agrees with his personal views.

With regard to the important question which is the right for a woman and her man, if he is around to help, to decide if it is best for their lives to allow a ball of cells to develop into a fetus, I think Paul is playing fancy with words, which seemingly has some attraction to those who give lip service to eschewing government. Going by your post, you say he wants to keep FEDERAL government out of the issue while believing abortion is murder. To be clear though I take it is your words, Mashuri, that brings "murder" into what he might or might not actually believe.

From his website http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/

When it comes to abortion, the labels “pro-life” and “pro-choice” are very misleading: most people want to protect human life and have the freedom to make choices that do not harm others. The real question is, when exactly does human life begin? At conception, at birth or somewhere in between? Until what point can a woman’s right to control her body override her unborn baby’s right to live?

Ron Paul has delivered more than 4,000 babies. He believes that human life starts at conception, and that casual elimination of the unborn leads to a careless attitude towards all life.

Paul thinks abortion is criminal, but wants to keep the Federal Gov't out of the issue: this is what I would call "punting," "passing the buck," or failure to stand up and take a position in reality. I surmise he would make it a states' rights issue. I think I could guarantee you that will just result in a generalized time-wasting clusterfuck with a mishmash of differing laws. The issue affects all women in the world of child bearing age. It is not a local or state problem. In a country if abortion is to be made an issue, then it is a national issue.

Paul recognizes the arguments regarding when human life actually begins, buy he like everyone else can only offer his opinion: to him human life starts at conception (he must have gone to school in Kansas). But it is just an opinion, and he is just another person on the planet. I have an opinion which is different. Who is right? He or I.

My opinion about his opinion is that it is based on Biblical teachings, but maybe not. For sure you take a morula and throw it out onto the ground and it will not survive as anything, and clearly is not even recognizable without microsopy as anything.

So why should Paul's opinion, or anyone else's opinion on a highly personal matter affecting the person with the embryo and the potential there for another human being, become the law of a land when there are people who definitely think the opinion as Paul holds is invalid?

The dumb answer is to involve government at any level or to allow whoever has the most powerful hand in congress and courts to dictate something that affects one, perhaps two people, and a ball of cells. It is insane, and the answer to the dilemma is so simple it defies understanding for many people: if you don't believe in abortions then don't have one and spend your time worrying about your decision and let other people live their lives.

If a group of people here in the US think abortion is something that requires laws to prohibit, or even a change in the constitution to define it as they would have it and thus prohibit abortion, then that group of people and the government should further insure that only people competent to parent be allowed to screw when they are legally contracted by marriage so that any offspring will become their legal financial obligation until age 18. Further the goverment should take all steps to insure that the mother is properly nourished, does not drink alcohol and use drugs that would harm the embryo/fetus be given every needed medical assistance to insure the health and viability of the embryo/fetus, and that the father and mother be tracked though their social security numbers to insure that they are both contributing to the support of the offspring. If the government finds the offspring is not receiving love, care, shelter, education, discipline, then the government should step into the picture and continue to protect the human being it mandated as having a "right" to have been born.

Thanks for continuing to discuss this issue. To me Paul is copping out, evading the issue if his position is as I take from your post, Mashuri.

[mikedev10]

Re: The Most Corrupt Members Of Congress 9/22/09

paul's quick stance on abortion: it's for the states to decide.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: The Most Corrupt Members Of Congress 9/22/09

Paul thinks abortion is criminal, but wants to keep the Federal Gov't out of the issue: this is what I would call "punting," "passing the buck," or failure to stand up and take a position in reality. I surmise he would make it a states' rights issue. I think I could guarantee you that will just result in a generalized time-wasting clusterfuck with a mishmash of differing laws. The issue affects all women in the world of child bearing age. It is not a local or state problem. In a country if abortion is to be made an issue, then it is a national issue.

By this argument, most every important matter should be a Federal matter.

I will not cop out on my opinion of this argument.

No way.

The desire to "get things right" on a matter, even important matters, must be balanced with the necessity to minimize excessive concentration of power.

As Thomas Jefferson warned: "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."

On the issue at hand, abortion, I agree with Ron Paul. It should be a state issue. It is entirely fine by me if the abortion laws in Utah differ dramatically from those in Nevada, to take the example of two geographically adjacent but socially divergent states.Until Roe v. Wade was decided by the Supreme Court, my recollection is that abortion was largely a state issue, and a far less politically divisive issue than since that decision. That was an unfortunate and misguided decision in my view.