Ten most corrupt politicians for 2009

[SilverTrain]

Oxford Dictionary: definition of corrupt

corrupt (cor·rupt)

Pronunciation:/kəˈrəpt/

adjective

1 having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain: (unscrupulous logging companies assisted by corrupt officials)
evil or morally depraved: (the play can do no harm since its audience is already corrupt)

archaic (of organic or inorganic matter ) in a state of decay; rotten or putrid: (a corrupt and rotting corpse

2 (of a text or manuscript) debased or made unreliable by errors or alterations
(of a computer database or program) having errors introduced

verb
[with object]

1 cause to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain: (there is a continuing fear of firms corrupting politicians in the search for contracts)
cause to become morally depraved: (he has corrupted the boy)

archaic infect; contaminate:
(as adjective corrupting)
(the corrupting smell of death)

2 (often be corrupted) change or debase by making errors or unintentional alterations: (Epicurus's teachings have since been much corrupted)
cause errors to appear in (a computer program or database): (a program that has somehow corrupted your system files)





Just so we're all clear on the meaning of "corrupt".

 

[B_talltpaguy]

I nominate Sarah "Drill Baby Drill" Palin.

^H^H^H^H^H Oops, I just remembered she quit just as the corruption charges were mounting.

But, but... It had nothing to do with the ethical shitstorm swirling around her, honest and for true! She only quit because she was "tired"... Yet mysteriously, since then she has hit the road non-stop and has become a media personality bilking the right wing's True Believers™ out of millions.

or maybe it was a factor afterall...
Lt. Governor States That Palin Ethics Complaints' Cost A factor in Her Resignation


And let's not forget Troopergate the year before, where she was already found to have broken ethics laws...
'Troopergate' inquiry finds Sarah Palin guilty


'Debates' are so easy when all one has to do is bludgeon the other side with the actual facts. While they lob articles written by partisan ideologues who 'believe' that certain Dems are corrupt (with little actual evidence of it), the other side can easily cite dozens of names from the Republican Party who have been investigated by law enforcement for corruption, and in many cases have been charged and convicted.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Oh I agree Star Investor and others have brought up some great some great topics. On the other hand the only thing i've seen you post are insults hatred to anyone who oppose your beliefs.

Then you can't read.
The first couple of posts I made in this thread focus on things that can be found on the website itself, and the sixth ones post was a very detailed, investigative look into some of the members of the Judicial Watch and their financial ties to demonstrate how their motives and actions are anything but nonpartisan. Other comments, as usual, were the type of response I'm known for when people of your "ilk" accuse me of being against them just because you view me as a "liberal". One of these days, you'll learn to stop that... or I can make fun of you until you seek therapy. It doesn't matter to me either way.

Post #1 - http://www.lpsg.org/186717-ten-most-corrupt-politicians-for.html#post2797332

Post #2 - http://www.lpsg.org/186717-ten-most-corrupt-politicians-for.html#post2797338

Post #3 - http://www.lpsg.org/186717-ten-most-corrupt-politicians-for.html#post2797342

Post #4 - http://www.lpsg.org/186717-ten-most-corrupt-politicians-for.html#post2797394

Post #5 - http://www.lpsg.org/186717-ten-most-corrupt-politicians-for-2.html#post2797853

Post #6 - http://www.lpsg.org/186717-ten-most-corrupt-politicians-for-2.html#post2798316

Seriously, I know I can be an asshole around here and for some twisted reason I pride myself to some degree knowing that I can be crass and still have very valid points to bring to the table. It makes people like you, who act like they're SO SURE about yourselves uncomfortable and focus on the more irrelevant stuff such as the name calling, which in turn makes you a hypocrite since you do exactly the same. And you fall for it every time. So much, in fact, that you now need to lie about it and hope someone sympathizes with you. How pathetic.

Your just a pathetic angry outcast looking for some redemption.

You should really stop looking at yourself in a mirror when you type these statements. Self hatred like that is not good for your psyche.

By the way I am heart broken to learn that you don't like me. I'm crushed. How can I possibly go on living?:frown1: "sniff"

There, there now. I know the fact that every time you try to make a snide remark at me, I return in tenfold and it puts your panties in a knot. But if it makes you feel better I can name a few bridges or buildings that you can toss yourself from. REALLY high ones too, so you can build up just enough velocity before impact. Because I feel you lack the cranial capacity to discuss any political matters properly I won't make a list of corrupt politicians for you, however, this I will gladly research for you.

Don't forget to take photos on the way down, ya heard?!

 

[maxcok]

What's the topic: Ten Most corupt politicians for 2009. You don't discredit the list by arguing if the creator of the list is partisan or non partisan. if you disagree or have someone that should be on the list" backed with evidence of course" then you choose your top 10. Then you debate who is worse based on facts regardless of their party affiliation. That's how you have an inteligent discussion. . . .

Thank you for explaining that and laying down the rules for 'inteligent' discussion. I see now that we are completely out of line for not being sucked into discussing the merits of an obviously biased list. We'll be sure to remember that every time you pop in with one of your typically off-topic baseless snipey posts.

 

[TurkeyWithaSunburn]

When did the Attorney General and Secretary of Treasury become elected positions? :smile:

 

[B_VinylBoy]

"You don't discredit the list by arguing if the creator of the list is partisan or non partisan."

ROTFLMAO! :lol:
So it's now wrong to go after the source? It's a deflection to go after the people who actually bring the information to you? If a teacher taught 100 students that 1+1=4, it's wrong to go after the teacher? We'd have to go after the 100 students after some website, claiming to be "nonpartisan", reported them as the 100 dumbest students in America?

Pure comedy... really, it is.

 

[B_hijack]

Attached is the link to view the 10 most corrupt politicians for 2009. Not many surprises. I only wish they had listed them in order of corruption level, instead of alphabetically.

Judicial Watch Announces List of Washington's "Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians" for 2009 | Judicial Watch

I guessed 8 of them before even viewing the report.

Here's one of those eight:

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): At the heart of the corruption problem in Washington is a sense of entitlement. Politicians believe laws and rules (even the U.S. Constitution) apply to the rest of us but not to them. Case in point: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her excessive and boorish demands for military travel. Judicial Watch obtained documents from the Pentagon in 2009 that suggest Pelosi has been treating the Air Force like her own personal airline. These documents, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, include internal Pentagon email correspondence detailing attempts by Pentagon staff to accommodate Pelosi's numerous requests for military escorts and military aircraft as well as the speaker's 11th hour cancellations and changes. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also came under fire in April 2009, when she claimed she was never briefed about the CIA's use of the waterboarding technique during terrorism investigations. The CIA produced a report documenting a briefing with Pelosi on September 4, 2002, that suggests otherwise. Judicial Watch also obtained documents, including a CIA Inspector General report, which further confirmed that Congress was fully briefed on the enhanced interrogation techniques. Aside from her own personal transgressions, Nancy Pelosi has ignored serious incidents of corruption within her own party, including many of the individuals on this list. (See Rangel, Murtha, Jesse Jackson, Jr., etc.)

This is absurd. Pelosi has a squeeky clean record and, as SilverTrain demonstrated, the criteria for corruption have not been met. Having "boorish demands" isn't being "corrupt". None of these allegations show any corruption aside from the waterboarding gaffe, which isn't a big deal. This is irresponsible "journalism". Also, terms like "aside from her own personal transgressions" and "like her own personal airline" are highly editorial. This is a conservative website's Op/Ed at best and should not be treated as a reliable document.

Throwing Obama in there for failing to be "transparent" is equally absurd. This is not "corruption".

Now that I've defended two Democrats, I really need to call a spade a spade: Blago seems guilty to me... and he was a horrible Apprentice. I believe that this is an indictable offense.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

You should really stop looking at yourself in a mirror when you type these statements. Self hatred like that is not good for your psyche.

I for one, would love it if everyone here would knock it off with this childish "I know you are, but what am I?" shit... You know, TRINITY does that, know what I'm saying?

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I for one, would love it if everyone here would knock it off with this childish "I know you are, but what am I?" shit... You know, TRINITY does that, know what I'm saying?

The target was not worthy of more sophisticated humor. :redface:

 

[B_talltpaguy]

That might be true... There's no sense in using a response that will not be comprehended by the person it's directed towards.

 

[maxcok]

I for one, would love it if everyone here would knock it off with this childish "I know you are, but what am I?" shit... You know, TRINITY does that, know what I'm saying?

And I, for one, can't believe how much attention this particular poster gets.

would be little more than a joke if people would refrain from engaging the Holy 3in1 in serious 'debate'.

Just sayin, don't give them that power. My suggestion, my $0.02.

 

[B_starinvestor]

Here's one of those eight:

This is absurd. Pelosi has a squeeky clean record and, as SilverTrain demonstrated, the criteria for corruption have not been met. Having "boorish demands" isn't being "corrupt". None of these allegations show any corruption aside from the waterboarding gaffe, which isn't a big deal. This is irresponsible "journalism". Also, terms like "aside from her own personal transgressions" and "like her own personal airline" are highly editorial. This is a conservative website's Op/Ed at best and should not be treated as a reliable document.

Squeaky clean? Passes laws pertaining to the state, but absolving husbands company of conformity?

Throwing Obama in there for failing to be "transparent" is equally absurd. This is not "corruption".

Guaranteeing transparancy to 280 million people and blatantly dismissing it is less than ethical.

Lining up the cabinet with tax evaders....lining up the administration with lobbyists after promising..guaranteeing he was getting lobbyists out of Washington...

Plugging Wall Street execs into position after position in the administration after decrying Wall Street the entire campaign.

Deception. Fraud. Con. Liar. Misinformer. Liar.

and yes, corrupt.

 

[SilverTrain]

Squeaky clean? Passes laws pertaining to the state, but absolving husbands company of conformity?


Guaranteeing transparancy to 280 million people and blatantly dismissing it is less than ethical.

Lining up the cabinet with tax evaders....lining up the administration with lobbyists after promising..guaranteeing he was getting lobbyists out of Washington...

Plugging Wall Street execs into position after position in the administration after decrying Wall Street the entire campaign.

Deception. Fraud. Con. Liar. Misinformer. Liar.

and yes, corrupt.

If you seriously classify Barack Obama as "corrupt", I can't imagine there are more than a handful of politicians on the planet who would be "not corrupt". Assuming of course that the classification is based on a serious, objective analysis of character and behavior, as opposed to knee-jerk partisan name calling.

 

[dreamer20]

Oxford Dictionary: definition of corrupt

corrupt
adjective

1 having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain

Just so we're all clear on the meaning of "corrupt".

Squeaky clean? Passes laws pertaining to the state, but absolving husbands company of conformity?

Guaranteeing transparency to 280 million people and blatantly dismissing it is less than ethical.
Lining up the cabinet with tax evaders....lining up the administration with lobbyists after promising..guaranteeing he was getting lobbyists out of Washington...

Plugging Wall Street execs into position after position in the administration after decrying Wall Street the entire campaign.

Deception. Fraud. Con. Liar. Misinformer. Liar.

and yes, corrupt.

And no, not corrupt. You, and Judicial Watch, haven't demonstrated convictions for political corruption in the cases of Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Guaranteeing transparancy to 280 million people and blatantly dismissing it is less than ethical.

Lining up the cabinet with tax evaders....lining up the administration with lobbyists after promising..guaranteeing he was getting lobbyists out of Washington...

Plugging Wall Street execs into position after position in the administration after decrying Wall Street the entire campaign.

Deception. Fraud. Con. Liar. Misinformer. Liar.

and yes, corrupt.

The transparency argument is TIRED.
There are many instances where the current administration has demonstrated transparency already, and only someone with extremely misguided beliefs would ever think that ANY politician would provide 100% transparency and openness to their world or to every single thing they talk about it. As an adult, you should already know this even if it was a campaign promise.

You've been using this red herring of an excuse for over a year now and it's ridiculous. Because quite honestly, the previous administration was far worse on this issue. BTW, you're also a hypocrite for calling someone else a fraud, a liar or misinformer since you selectively left out the fact that Judicial Watch was a "Conservative" source... and that was the THIRD WORD in the first paragraph of their "About Us" page.

Now go ahead and mention something rhetorically dishonest about "taxpayer dollars" so we can laugh at you some more, because that's probably what's coming next.

 

[tripod]

The organization received financial support from prominent Clinton critics, including $7.74 million from conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife. Scaife is known for his financial support of conservative and right-wing public policy organizations over the past two decades.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Mellon_Scaife

This is the crux of the matter.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

Plugging Wall Street execs into position after position in the administration after decrying Wall Street the entire campaign.

Just to be clear on your position here... Are you engaging in concern trolling, or do you now agree with Democratic progressives that Obama should jettison these guys from his administration, and bring in outsiders who will actually reign in Wall St?

 

[B_starinvestor]

the transparency argument is tired.
There are many instances where the current administration has demonstrated transparency already, and only someone with extremely misguided beliefs would ever think that any politician would provide 100% transparency and openness to their world or to every single thing they talk about it. As an adult, you should already know this even if it was a campaign promise.

You've been using this red herring of an excuse for over a year now and it's ridiculous. Because quite honestly, the previous administration was far worse on this issue. Btw, you're also a hypocrite for calling someone else a fraud, a liar or misinformer since you selectively left out the fact that judicial watch was a "conservative" source... And that was the third word in the first paragraph of their "about us" page.

Now go ahead and mention something rhetorically dishonest about "taxpayer dollars" so we can laugh at you some more, because that's probably what's coming next.

c*span

 

[B_starinvestor]

Just to be clear on your position here... Are you engaging in concern trolling, or do you now agree with Democratic progressives that Obama should jettison these guys from his administration, and bring in outsiders who will actually reign in Wall St?

If you want to reign in Wall Street, you need Wall Street guys to do it. Nobody else understands it.

My point is very, very simple. Obama slammed Wall Street his entire campaign. Upon election, he jerked off every fucking CEO on the Street.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

Plugging Wall Street execs into position after position in the administration after decrying Wall Street the entire campaign.

If you want to reign in Wall Street, you need Wall Street guys to do it. Nobody else understands it.

ok, so my hunch was right... your objections are merely concern trolling.