Do you think Rush Limbaugh went too far?

[Dragon Star]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone here disagree with this?

Well, our old friend Halcyon Dayz informs us that everyone in business is corrupt, and now we know that everyone in government is corrupt. Is just plain everyone corrupt, or are the unemployed the one group of honest people?

Well, I was referring to my quote from BT, but you make my point...

Here is my sudden (as in just now) epiphany. Which is probably wrong, but that's why I brought it up. :)

Everyone is corrupt, as the potential for corruption resides in us all, but...an individual has morals without influence from a group (most of the time). So, it can be said that an individual is less corrupt then a group of people. But, here is the catch...an individual attempting to impress/get into the group either by popular vote, election, exc... are the most corrupt of all.

What do you guys think? Am I completely off the wall here?

[Enzo]

I have known officers in the military that no why in hell they could have cheated on their wifes. No way

Yes and in the office next to theirs is another officer who does it every day. The woman's assertion is obviously incorrect, as is most any assertion that ALL of any group behave a certain way. On the other hand some examples of people who are straight arrows does not negate the fact that people of standing often take advantage of their underlings.

When MJF fund out he had the disease, it became something real to him, not an abstract thing. He finds himself in a position to help others in his condition. To digress a moment, Polio is an awful thing. I remember the iron lungs and kids in braces when I was young. But I never knew anyone with polio. It still exists, but I have to admit I don't do anything about it. And charitable gestures on my part are currently directed elsewhere. If a friend or family member came back from Africa with polio, it might alter my personal priorities. I might be more active in the fight against polio. Not because it never mattered before, nor because I needed people to look at me different. It would be a result of life having its effects upon me. So it is unfair when people criticize MJF for not having been a PArkinsons activist before he came down with it. Whatever he did before, having the disease opened his eyes to it. Just as getting arrested for drunk driving can open your eyes to your own drinking problem. Ever notice how the awareness of school security increases after something like Columbine?

So here he is stumping for a candidate. You can look at it two ways. You could say: Gee, MJF has a candidate he wants to win for some selfish purpose and he thinks "GOLLY, I've got this disease we can exploit." Or you can think: Gee MJF wants more efforts to cure Parkinsons and this candidate would be in a position to help the cause if he is elected so he is trying to help that to happen.

So there it is. The candidate is the priority and the disease is merely a tool. OR The disease issue is the priority and the candidate is merely the tool.

Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:11 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Have you read all the fucked up hate the left has:

http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/threa ... m=Page%3D1

Christ, this country is going to hell if Hillary gets elected president.

Oh please, some post on a discussion biard is evidence of nothing. Why don't you go to Ann Coulter sites or Laura Ingraham sites and read all the fucked up hate the right has. Or just tune in your radio to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity some afternoon and you can listen to the hate for hours on end all from the right.

But the question I have now is what exactly do you think will happen in this country if Hillary gets elected? The country certainly didn't go to hell when Bill was president. Whatever disagreements you have with his policies or personal behaviors, the nation did pretty well. Just what will the amazing problems be? She gonna start another pointless war like the one he got now? There gonna be bread lines from the 99% unemployment? Terrorists blowing up a city every other day until all that is left is Waterloo Iowa - a city the terrorists chose for its name? MAybe taxes will go up to 120% of income? Baloney.

So in answer to the question: does anyone disagree? Yeah, I disagree. WOUld she be my pick for president? Probably not. But would the nation fall apart? Not even close. I didn't think the nation would fall apart when George W Bush was reelected either. Though I thought it was a grim day, we will survive and thrive.

Everyone is corrupt, as the potential for corruption resides in us all, but...an individual has morals without influence from a group (most of the time). So, it can be said that an individual is less corrupt then a group of people. But, here is the catch...an individual attempting to impress/get into the group either by popular vote, election, exc... are the most corrupt of all.

What do you guys think? Am I completely off the wall here?

I don't buy it. Self-interest is in us all, but that is not the same as corruption. Temptation is not a crime. If Jack Abramoff offers you a million dollars to vote one way or another, it might be appealing, but it is not corruption if you turn him down.

If you see someone drop a ten dollar bill in the store, it might cross your mind that you could pick it up and no one would be the wiser. But you don't, you pick it up and hand it to him, "Hey, you dropped this, man." You are not corrupt, you just went through a mental process we all do. Your own morals determined that course of action. Now what if some others were across the room and you realized when you picked up the ten that they saw you. Would you pocket that money if you thought those kids would think you were cool? Are your morals for sale? For ten bucks?

Politics by it very nature is about compromise, so to the ideologue compromising may look like selling out, but really it is how people with varying points of view get along.

So I don't buy ALL politicians are corrupt any more than I believe all of any group is any particular thing.

[Bill_Thompson]

I believe the belief that everyone is corrupt cannot be based on any logical study or conclusion. So it should not be just accepted. That is illogical.

Also it is a cop-out and an ethically bad perspective. It gives you license to look the other way when your favorate politican is being corrupt and you will still support him. It also makes you assume the other guy is corrupt even if he is not and you will believe any rumor any tabloid tells you because you have already considered him guilty.

[Bandit]

I voted no even though I can't stand Rush. I'm not sympathetic to anyone that uses a dibilitating affliction for political purposes.

[Мастер]

an individual attempting to impress/get into the group either by popular vote, election, exc... are the most corrupt of all.

A wise individual (who also happened to win a Nobel prize in the 1990s) argues that it stands to reason that people who are inclined to be corrupt, will seek out occupations where corruption is profitable :P

[Мастер]

The country certainly didn't go to hell when Bill was president.

Well, Bill ~= Hillary. But, in any event, I know plenty of people who say it did go to hell during the first (and possibly only) Clinton administration. And by the criteria they use, it did :P

[Dragon Star]

Enzo, your analogy is insufficient. Corruption comes from positions of power, not Billy Bob from down the street.

I believe the belief that everyone is corrupt cannot be based on any logical study or conclusion.

I personally don't require my personal common sense to be based on logical studies or conclusions. I base it off of priority within the individual.

I say everyone is corrupt, but the basis under which you corrupt is based on the values of the action that causes corruption. Is it more important for you to wreak the rewards for the possible consequence? Because everyone has different values means some values are more important then others. Those more important values is where corruption begins and rationality ends. So, who, under the right circumstances, would honestly not corrupt when the individual's own preferences determine the value of the idea being corrupted?

I am an honest guy...I don't break the law (at least not intentionally, and when I know what the law is), fallow the rules, stay out of trouble, and I feel as thought I am a rational person. But under the right circumstances I am a corrupt individual because their are things I feel strongly about that I will withhold no matter the cost when it comes to the law, or others idealogical views.

So I arrive at this for my revised idea: Not everyone is corrupt at this moment in time, but everyone will corrupt under the correct circumstances. Given the reason to be corrupt when you withhold a position of power to possibly get away with it, the chances are greater then beyond a reasonable doubt that a person will corrupt themselves to protect their own ideals and personal values against others own ideas and personal values.

I might be nuts, but that's what I think so far...

[Enzo]

Then our disagreement is over the use of the word corrupt. I think you use it too broadly. It seems you use it to mean human frailty and temptation. That anyone recognizes that he COULD do something bad doesn't make him corrupt. Corruption to me at least means someone DOES the thing, or is WILLING to if they have not yet.

I recognize that I COULD sneak up on the cub scout col;ecting for charity and steal his money. I would not ever do that, but I COULD. That doesn't make me corrupt.

Corruption is a way of life, not a move of desperation. If I were starving, might I reach over and grab your french fries when you look away? MAybe I would. But that is not corruption. If someone snatched my child and coerced me into committing a crime to get her back, any act I commit then is under duress, not the result of corruption. Corruption is a willingness to break the rules for personal gain or glory, not because life depends upon it.

It sounds like your view of corruption is summed up by the old line, "Everyone has their price." Well, that is nice and glib, but when someone tells me that I usually ask then " What was your mother's price?"

I don't see a difference between small potatoes me and Senator So and so. It is only a matter of scale. He is willing to compromise his morals or he is not. That is what corruption means. I have the opportunity to steal your lawnmower (or wireless internet service...HAH!), while he has the opportunity to steal millions of dollars, yes, but either one was a lapse in morals. I don't see it as a risk/rewards decision. That WOULD be everyone has a price. If I see a bank bag fall from an armored car on lonely road, I could pick it up and keep it when they get out of sight and NO ONE would ever know it was me. No risk, high monetary reward. By your theory I would keep the money since:

the basis under which you corrupt is based on the values of the action that causes corruption. Is it more important for you to wreak the rewards for the possible consequence?

I have no consequences to worry about, yet I turn the money in anyway, corruption was not the issue. Honesty and integrity maybe. There you go, corruption is a special case of dishonesty.. Senator Phoghat has the opportunity to scam a million dollars without getting caught, and yet he goes to the ethics committee and points out the lack of security.

But under the right circumstances I am a corrupt individual because their are things I feel strongly about that I will withhold no matter the cost when it comes to the law, or others idealogical views.

That's not corruption. Are those things you refer to for the purpose of personal gain outside the rules? Without illicit gains, there is no corruption. Civil disobedience is not corruption.

[Frogmarch]

well Bush used the snowflake children as propaganda so I guess that Fox felt it would be fair to show people what Bush's policies were really about.

[Dragon Star]

Then our disagreement is over the use of the word corrupt. I think you use it too broadly.

Well, frankly, the word corrupt is a pretty broad word.

cor·rupt (kə-rŭpt') pronunciation
adj.

1. Marked by immorality and perversion; depraved.
2. Venal; dishonest: a corrupt mayor.
3. Containing errors or alterations, as a text: a corrupt translation.
4. Archaic. Tainted; putrid.


v., -rupt·ed, -rupt·ing, -rupts.

v.tr.

1. To destroy or subvert the honesty or integrity of.
2. To ruin morally; pervert.
3. To taint; contaminate.
4. To cause to become rotten; spoil.
5. To change the original form of (a text, for example).
6. Computer Science. To damage (data) in a file or on a disk.

Also, I never said that corruption is an act of desperation. I only say that corruption derives from power as power is the gateway to corruption.

I view the word corruption as the BIG scale, while you seem to think that I think it's from a little old lady stealing grapes for the groceries store. Corruption is based on how many people it affects and the reactions that will be caused by the so said corruptive activity.

If I rob your house of $500 worth of stuff, it's just the legality of it. But if I am in a position of power (e.g.head of the corporation), and I embezzle $500,000 from a charity fund organization, that's corruption. If you were not in that position of power, you would have not have even tried to take that money because it was not readily available to you.

I think corruption derives from a trust from a group of people to positions of power to act or behave a certain way and to not abuse the power, when this is broken, you're a corrupt individual.

I've got the wheels a turnin' now. :D

[Enzo]

Also, I never said that corruption is an act of desperation. I only say that corruption derives from power as power is the gateway to corruption.

I know you didn't, I said it. I said it to contrast response to dire circumstances with a pattern if life. It may be dishonest to steal, but I don't call it corruption when a hungry man swipes an apple from the store. Corruption is something people do when they don't HAVE to to survive.

I view the word corruption as the BIG scale, while you seem to think that I think it's from a little old lady stealing grapes for the groceries store. Corruption is based on how many people it affects and the reactions that will be caused by the so said corruptive activity.

NO, read it again. I contrast the little old lady with corruption. I make the distinction in response to this:

I say everyone is corrupt

The little old lady who steal because she is hungry may very well be totally repulsed by the thought of embezzling from a company and even if she later found herself in a position might still feel the same way and NOT yield to temptation. She feels bad already about stealing to survive. On the other hand a little old lady who steals grapes just to avoid paying for them even though she could - shoplifting - is basically dishonest, and I would expect in a bigger position would be quite capable of embezzling.

SO I don't agree that everyone is corrupt, I don't agree with this:

everyone will corrupt under the correct circumstances.

Unless you include such things as starving or something, and then it no longer fits the description of corruption. Otherwise there are many many people who will not do something wrong just because they can get away with it.

If I rob your house of $500 worth of stuff, it's just the legality of it. But if I am in a position of power (e.g.head of the corporation), and I embezzle $500,000 from a charity fund organization, that's corruption. If you were not in that position of power, you would have not have even tried to take that money because it was not readily available to you.

The $500 robber would also be a $500,000 robber given the chance, yes. The $500,000 robber might well not be as willing to steal YOUR $500. But Yes I agree that the opportunity must be there. But I don't accept that that is all it takes. otherwise ALL charity fund heads would do it. For example, whatever you might think of my personal morals, I can assure you that I would not steal $500,000 from any organization I found my self runnign, even if I thought I could get away with it scott free. It takes more than opportunity.

I think corruption derives from a trust from a group of people to positions of power to act or behave a certain way and to not abuse the power, when this is broken, you're a corrupt individual.

Can't argue with that, it pretty well defines it. Just don't add in the everyone part.

[Dragon Star]

Also, I never said that corruption is an act of desperation. I only say that corruption derives from power as power is the gateway to corruption.

I know you didn't, I said it. I said it to contrast response to dire circumstances with a pattern if life. It may be dishonest to steal, but I don't call it corruption when a hungry man swipes an apple from the store. Corruption is something people do when they don't HAVE to to survive.

Yea, I agree with that.

I view the word corruption as the BIG scale, while you seem to think that I think it's from a little old lady stealing grapes for the groceries store. Corruption is based on how many people it affects and the reactions that will be caused by the so said corruptive activity.

NO, read it again. I contrast the little old lady with corruption. I make the distinction in response to this:

I say everyone is corrupt

Well, as I was tying it I was developing my views of it, you will notice that I typed that in the beginning of my post, but I varied my idea as I went.

The little old lady who steal because she is hungry may very well be totally repulsed by the thought of embezzling from a company and even if she later found herself in a position might still feel the same way and NOT yield to temptation. She feels bad already about stealing to survive. On the other hand a little old lady who steals grapes just to avoid paying for them even though she could - shoplifting - is basically dishonest, and I would expect in a bigger position would be quite capable of embezzling.

Still, I am defining this as something that affects a large amount of people. Stealing or Lying to an individual is a personal problem, and is only looked at through the law system, to a group it qualifies as corruption.

SO I don't agree that everyone is corrupt, I don't agree with this:

everyone will corrupt under the correct circumstances.

Unless you include such things as starving or something, and then it no longer fits the description of corruption. Otherwise there are many many people who will not do something wrong just because they can get away with it.

Huh? Many people would do something a society thinks wrong if they can get away with it, they are called criminals. Are you suggesting that their aren't many criminals out there? Surely not...

If I rob your house of $500 worth of stuff, it's just the legality of it. But if I am in a position of power (e.g.head of the corporation), and I embezzle $500,000 from a charity fund organization, that's corruption. If you were not in that position of power, you would have not have even tried to take that money because it was not readily available to you.

The $500 robber would also be a $500,000 robber given the chance, yes. The $500,000 robber might well not be as willing to steal YOUR $500. But Yes I agree that the opportunity must be there. But I don't accept that that is all it takes. otherwise ALL charity fund heads would do it. For example, whatever you might think of my personal morals, I can assure you that I would not steal $500,000 from any organization I found my self runnign, even if I thought I could get away with it scott free. It takes more than opportunity.

Yea, I agree...sorta- It's situational, but given the right circumstances more individuals then not would take advantage of that to accomplish personal goals, so I say we, as a people, are corrupt. You can't separate who the corrupt are from those who are not, therefore I think you should just take for granted that people do bad things for personal benefit that affect large amounts of people. That is where I get that everyone is corrupt, not necessarily because everyone is, but that 9/10 would be given opportunity, and reward for doing so when discussing, say, being a govt official or something of moderately high power.

However, having a sort of extreme power in the eye of the people changes everything. There is not one person in the world that would be president of the United States or any other country that would not be corrupt in some way, be it by national security, personal security, or accomplishing the agenda at hand based on what they personally feel is right. Everyone lies to protect their reputation, and I don't care who it is. It might be something small, "Mr. President, have you ever smoked weed as a teenager?", do you think he would answer that honestly? No, and it doesn't even seem like something that's bad, but when you lie to millions of Americans in order to change their perception of yourself-it's corruption, because if you can lie about that, then you can lie about the next thing down the road.

I realize we probably disagree here, but that's okay, wouldn't be the first time.:wink: