The U.S. is in a road which can ONLY end in eventual despotism......

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Roland: I don't think you understand the meaning of the word corruption at all.

I already stated that "arguments" about definitions are fruitless. But if you insist on argument by dictionary, well,what does it mean (dictionary.com)?

corruption

1. The act of corrupting or making putrid, or state of being corrupt or putrid; decomposition or disorganization, in the process of putrefaction; putrefaction; deterioration.

The inducing and accelerating of putrefaction is a subject of very universal inquiry; for corruption is a reciprocal to ``generation''. --Bacon.

2. The product of corruption; putrid matter.

3. The act of corrupting or of impairing integrity, virtue, or moral principle; the state of being corrupted or debased; loss of purity or integrity; depravity; wickedness; impurity; bribery.

It was necessary, by exposing the gross corruptions of monasteries, . . . to exite popular indignation against them. --Hallam.

They abstained from some of the worst methods of corruption usual to their party in its earlier days. --Bancroft.

Note: Corruption, when applied to officers, trustees, etc., signifies the inducing a violation of duty by means of pecuniary considerations. --Abbott.

4. The act of changing, or of being changed, for the worse; departure from what is pure, simple, or correct; as, a corruption of style; corruption in language.

Corruption of blood (Law), taint or impurity of blood, in consequence of an act of attainder of treason or felony, by which a person is disabled from inheriting any estate or from transmitting it to others.

Corruption of blood can be removed only by act of Parliament. --Blackstone.

Syn: Putrescence; putrefaction; defilement; contamination; deprivation; debasement; adulteration; depravity; taint. See Depravity.

corruption

n 1: lack of integrity or honesty; esp susceptibility to bribery; use of a position of trust for dishonest gain [syn: corruptness] [ant: incorruptness] 2: in a state of progressive putrefaction [syn: putrescence, putridness, rottenness] 3: decay of matter (as by rot or oxidation) 4: moral perversion; impairment of virtue and moral principles: "the luxury and corruption among the upper classes"; "moral degeneracy followed intellectual degeneration"; "its brothels; its opium parlors; its depravity" [syn: degeneracy, depravity] 5: destroying someone's honesty or loyalty or moral integrity: "corruption of a minor"

cor·rupt
Marked by immorality and perversion; depraved.
Venal; dishonest: a corrupt mayor.
Containing errors or alterations, as a text: a corrupt translation.
Archaic. Tainted; putrid.

v. cor·rupt·ed, cor·rupt·ing, cor·rupts
v. tr.
To destroy or subvert the honesty or integrity of.
To ruin morally; pervert.
To taint; contaminate.
To cause to become rotten; spoil.
To change the original form of (a text, for example).
Computer Science. To damage (data) in a file or on a disk.

v. intr.
To become corrupt.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English, from Latin corruptus, past participle of corrumpere, to destroy : com-, intensive pref.; see com- + rumpere, to break; see reup- in Indo-European Roots.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cor·rupter or cor·ruptor n.
cor·ruptive adj.
cor·ruptly adv.
cor·ruptness n.
Synonyms: corrupt, debase, debauch, deprave, pervert, vitiate
These verbs mean to ruin utterly in character or quality: was corrupted by limitless power; debased himself by pleading with the captors; a youth debauched by drugs and drink; indulgence that depraves the moral fiber; perverted her talent by putting it to evil purposes; a proof vitiated by a serious omission.

Pretty broad meaning, hmm? So what is your problem?

[Chris 62]

So, what does it mean?

[HershOstropoler]

cyclotron7:

"So, because our politicians are under no suspicion of corruption, they must then be corrupt in a corrupt system.... I'm dissapointed that your best argument that we are corrupt is that we aren't being charged with it, so we must be."

Pretty pathetic attempt at a strawman. I said lack of prosecution does not prove lack of corruption; you twist it to mean I said lack of prosecution is evidence or proof of corruption.

"Consider recent pseudo-scandals, from Clinton to Gore to Bush, where even the slightest hint of irregular fundraising caused an uproar."

It causes a little noise, at worst. Was there a prosecution against Clinton, apart from the fuss about getting a blowjob? Ah yes, whitewater - a speculation gone wrong. Where was the political connection there?

"The collapse of such companies has nothing to do with government action or campaign conributions."

You blissfully ignored the rest of the point.

"Because I find it odd that you attack corporations exclusively, instead of the entire system of contributions."

Where did I exclude others? I explicitly included all special interests. But if it makes you happy, american Unions are just as happy in participating in the corruption.

"If contributions really are corruption"

I qualified under which circumstances contributions are considered corruption by me. Please read completely.

"It just seems obvious to me that your argument is anti-business for no good reason."

First, I said "They, just as every special interest group, are just taking advantage of a rotten system - stupid would the be, if they didn't."

Second, since when do corporations equal business?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Pretty broad meaning, hmm? So what is your problem?

That you've provided nothing of import to support your facetious hyperbole. Your whole contention rests on people buying your hysterical supposition that bribery is systemic throughout the system.

[Chris 62]

"facetious hyperbole"

There's a line you don't hear everyday.

[HershOstropoler]

Oh, it's bribery in a rather broad sense, hence my using of the broad term corruption. Now you're trying to imprint your obviously limited understanding on my comments.

But why do I still wonder that debates with rightwingers always center around accusations of anti-american bias, claims of correct definitions and strawmen by the ****load.

Well actually, I don't.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Pretty pathetic attempt at a strawman. I said lack of prosecution does not prove lack of corruption; you twist it to mean I said lack of prosecution is evidence or proof of corruption.

You are the one accusing us of corruption. Without actual court accusations and convictions, the burden of proof lies solely on your shoulders. True, lack of prosecution does not prove lack of corruptionb, but it's a pretty good indicator and so far you have not offered any other proof that we are corrupt.

It causes a little noise, at worst. Was there a prosecution against Clinton, apart from the fuss about getting a blowjob? Ah yes, whitewater - a speculation gone wrong. Where was the political connection there?

It causes only a little noise because it's not corruption. It usually turns out, after an investigation, that there was no wrongdoing.

You blissfully ignored the rest of the point.

That's because it's irrelvant. Please make an effort to understand what corruption means.

Where did I exclude others? I explicitly included all special interests. But if it makes you happy, american Unions are just as happy in participating in the corruption.

What about individual people? Does my personal contribution constitute corruption?

I'd love to debate this meaningfully, but you have yet to bring any proof that we are in any way a corrupt system. Wishful thinking, perhaps?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Oh, it's bribery in a rather broad sense,

Aren't we stretching the term to the point of irrelevence?

Well actually, I don't.

They get tired of being ignored when they make the attempt to provide real sources.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
But why do I still wonder that debates with rightwingers always center around accusations of anti-american bias, claims of correct definitions and strawmen by the ****load.

I can answer that, having had many with you.

You never provide fact, always cloud your postions, and base your entire postion on innuedo and suppositions.

[HershOstropoler]

"Please make an effort to understand what corruption means."

Please make an effort to see that it is pointless to argue about the meaning of a term. Definitions are never right or wrong, they are just useful or useless. For communication purposes it helps when they are common - I can't get more common than the dictionary.

What is your problem? Limiting corruption to how it is defined in criminal law?

[Ned]

HO, on Clinton, you know the impeachment was not about Monica Lewinsky. So why to you suggest it was?

On corruption, the problem of money influencing government actions truly is a problem. The problem seems to be a lot worse where those in power cannot lose power through democratic means.

The true solution to corruption, therefor, is a vigorous democracy. Where those in power begin selling favors, those out of power can denounce it and be voted in to "throw the scoundrels out." (That is an old saying in the US.)

Right now, we have very equal balance between the Repubicans and Democrats in the US, with the Republicans holding a slight edge for the first time is almost 60 years. This is not the kind of enviroment that fosters corruption. Rather, it is the kind of environment that prevents it.

[HershOstropoler]

Ned:

"HO, on Clinton, you know the impeachment was not about Monica Lewinsky. So why to you suggest it was?"

Well you are correct, formally it wasn't. However his conduct was related to that bizarre affair, and the given reasons were a pretext for most. But who cares, Clinton should have resigned on day 1 of that farce if he had had any decency.

"On corruption, the problem of money influencing government actions truly is a problem... The true solution to corruption, therefor, is a vigorous democracy. Where those in power begin selling favors, those out of power can denounce it and be voted in to "throw the scoundrels out.""

You may find this is odd, but I agree 100 % on that.

"Right now, we have very equal balance between the Repubicans and Democrats in the US, with the Republicans holding a slight edge for the first time is almost 60 years. This is not the kind of enviroment that fosters corruption. Rather, it is the kind of environment that prevents it."

Here I don't agree. Both parties are corrupt, and both parties are permanently more or less in power - so there is no clear destinction between an opposition and the government. Second, US voters show extremely little inclination to push out incumbents, especially if they can outspend the challenger. Usually you have to kill someone (or at least get a reasonable suspicion on you) to be forced out.

The environment does foster corruption unless there emerges an actual opposition, and at the moment that could only be a third party. But then, there are severe structural impediments to the success of third parties in the US.

[Whaleboy]

Perhaps this thread would have been better as a poll: "Is the US on a road ...etc"

[Ned]

HO, I'll think on your post. But, if two equally powerful parties cannot prevent corruption, I am not sure adding a third to mix will automatically fix things.

As to incumbants, the you have to recognize that power in legislatures goes to the majority. Thus it is important to periodically change majorities to reduce corruption.

In the Executive, we truly have a balance in the US. We seem to be alternating between Republicans and Democrats at both the Federal and State level.

But, as you said, if the guy in charge, regardless of party, requires his kickback before he acts, having two corrupt parties is not a solution.

[HershOstropoler]

Ned, the problem is that you have a permanent coalition government of Republicans and Democrats. Even if one party has the President, the House and the Senate with 51-59 Senators, the other party is still "in government", especially with the lack of party discipline. It also means that no one is really responsible for anything - that's the downside of gridlock.

Similar permacoalitions exist in Germany and the EU; and they are detrimental to good governance there too.

"I am not sure adding a third to mix will automatically fix things."

Not a fix, but it helps immensely in controlling the problem. When we had a coalition of the two big parties from 1987-1999, we gradually cut them from 95 to 60 % of the vote, until they cried uncle. Without that, they would have pulled so much more ****, I don't even want to imagine.