Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: Most Corrupt Members of Congress
mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Fri 09/23/11 09:49 PM
the only thing i see in all that is they are saying there is only 19 corrupt members of congress? that seems a little low

artlo Joined Sat 01/29/11 Posts: 3085	Fri 09/23/11 09:53 PM
the only thing i see in all that is they are saying there is only 19 corrupt members of congress? that seems a little low You really didn't read the Executive Summary, did you?

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Fri 09/23/11 09:59 PM
the only thing i see in all that is they are saying there is only 19 corrupt members of congress? that seems a little low You really didn't read the Executive Summary, did you? yes, no... what? i just read the first post... did i miss something?

Chazster Joined Tue 08/28/07 Posts: 6206	Fri 09/23/11 10:03 PM
You are going to some amazing calisthenics to prove something that was never even addressed. Why prove your case with a hypothetical? Why don't you use real numbers? They're all available. You may succeed in actually proving something if you work hard enough at it. The only facts before you are that Republis comprise 56% of the House and 63% of the list of corrupt politicians I did use real numbers. Thats how I got 3.6% and 4.9%. I even showed the calculations. No I didnt do any form of dynamic exercise consisting of a variety of simple, often rhythmical, movements, generally using minimal equipment or apparatus. Those are not the only facts. What I have stated are facts. I have also addressed the requirements of those facts. I find a 1.5% difference in the percent of corruption in each group almost an irrelevant difference especially based on the way the results were determined. The only difference is you have a bias agenda.

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Fri 09/23/11 10:04 PM
You are going to some amazing calisthenics to prove something that was never even addressed. Why prove your case with a hypothetical? Why don't you use real numbers? They're all available. You may succeed in actually proving something if you work hard enough at it. The only facts before you are that Republis comprise 56% of the House and 63% of the list of corrupt politicians I did use real numbers. Thats how I got 3.6% and 4.9%. I even showed the calculations. No I didnt do any form of dynamic exercise consisting of a variety of simple, often rhythmical, movements, generally using minimal equipment or apparatus. Those are not the only facts. What I have stated are facts. I have also addressed the requirements of those facts. I find a 1.5% difference in the percent of corruption in each group almost an irrelevant difference especially based on the way the results were determined. The only difference is you have a bias agenda. no truer words have ever been said...

heavenlyboy34 Joined Fri 07/04/08 Posts: 17348	Fri 09/23/11 10:15 PM
get out of this democrat and/or republican blame game Doesn't seem realistic to me. The fact is that the Republi policies did cause the bad economy. The fact is that Democratic politicians have done a miserable job of reversing those policies. It is policy malpractice that has caused our economic problems. How do you think the raise-taxes people and the recalcitrant eliminate-programs people are going to "work together" when there is genuine blame to be assessed? How do they find concensus when only one position is right and one is most definitely wrong? It's a silly concept. This is a myopic view. (I don't mean that as an insult, btw) Parties are meaningless in the grand scheme of things. What happens behind the scenes is determined by the power/financial elite. "Give me control of a nation's money supply and I care not who makes its laws". -Mayer Amschel Rothschild

artlo Joined Sat 01/29/11 Posts: 3085	Fri 09/23/11 10:53 PM
Actually, I said nothing about one party being more corrupt than the other. I said only that Republis comprise 56% of the House and 63% of the list of corrupt politicians. You can make anything you want out of that. I made nothing of it. The details of their case, as described in the report, however, were interesting to me.

artlo Joined Sat 01/29/11 Posts: 3085	Fri 09/23/11 11:40 PM Edited by artlo on Fri 09/23/11 11:55 PM
Thats how I got 3.6% and 4.9% Well, as long as we're trying to prove things, let's look at it this way. By simple proportion, 4.9% corrupt Republis/3.6% corrupt Democrats=1.36%. This tells us that, for every 1 % corrupt Democrat we found, there were 1.36% corrupt Republicans. In terms we can all understand, that would tell us that the incident of corruption among Republicans is 1.36 times as many as for for Democrats. That is, a Republican is about a third more likely to be corrupt than a Democrat. Your example is analogous to saying that since only .5% of all Americans will get a terrible disease and 1% of another group will get it, they are only half a percent apart, when in fact, it shows that the risk factor for one group is twice that for the other group. That's the problem with reducing these statistics down to little tiny percentages. It really distorts the meaning of the numbers.

boredinaz06 Joined Sun 10/15/06 Posts: 22764	Sat 09/24/11 01:50 AM
Actually, I said nothing about one party being more corrupt than the other. I said only that Republis comprise 56% of the House and 63% of the list of corrupt politicians. You can make anything you want out of that. I made nothing of it. The details of their case, as described in the report, however, were interesting to me. Are we talking politicians as a whole or just congressional members because last I checked the filthy democRATS had control of the senate.

Chazster Joined Tue 08/28/07 Posts: 6206	Sat 09/24/11 08:50 AM
Thats how I got 3.6% and 4.9% Well, as long as we're trying to prove things, let's look at it this way. By simple proportion, 4.9% corrupt Republis/3.6% corrupt Democrats=1.36%. This tells us that, for every 1 % corrupt Democrat we found, there were 1.36% corrupt Republicans. In terms we can all understand, that would tell us that the incident of corruption among Republicans is 1.36 times as many as for for Democrats. That is, a Republican is about a third more likely to be corrupt than a Democrat. Your example is analogous to saying that since only .5% of all Americans will get a terrible disease and 1% of another group will get it, they are only half a percent apart, when in fact, it shows that the risk factor for one group is twice that for the other group. That's the problem with reducing these statistics down to little tiny percentages. It really distorts the meaning of the numbers. Actually it doesn't if you read how they did their study. For one its only most corrupt. 2nd its based on evidence readily available. Thus there is of course a margin of error. There are people who were not caught. There are also people who are corrupt but just not at the top of the list. Then there is the fact that you can only count the people in office as this is not on unchanging thing. People are different. Thus I will agree that according to this study their are 1.36% more corrupt republicans than democrat per person. So based on this articles results if you had about 200 of each you would have 2.7 more of the most corrupt on the republican side.

artlo Joined Sat 01/29/11 Posts: 3085	Sat 09/24/11 08:52 AM
Are we talking politicians as a whole or just congressional members because last I checked the filthy democRATS had control of the senate If you bother to read the report, you would understand who is being referenced. Also, it would be a good idea to read up on the filibuster rules of the Senate. The people who are in control of the Senate are the people who can control what the Senate does (or doesn't do). Unfortunately for the country, the radical right-wing super-minority are in that position with 41 votes. Here is an article that explains how the filibuster works. It would clear up any misunderstandings you have about this. It would be well worth reading and studying it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster (I understand that you believe you are circumventing the rules of the forum by not mentioning any specific posters, but if you want a duel of personal insults, your meaning is clear. Who do you think you are fooling? We aren't supposed to be making personal insults. Nonetheless, this kind of rhetoric says much more about you that it does about us DemocRATS. It really doesn't bother us).

artlo Joined Sat 01/29/11 Posts: 3085	Sat 09/24/11 08:55 AM
Are we talking politicians as a whole or just congressional members because last I checked the filthy democRATS had control of the senate If you bother to read the report, you would understand who is being referenced. Also, it would be a good idea to read up on the filibuster rules of the Senate. The people who are in control of the Senate are the people who can control what the Senate does (or doesn't do). Unfortunately for the country, the radical right-wing super-minority are in that position with 41 votes. Here is an article that explains how the filibuster works. It would clear up any misunderstandings you have about this. It would be well worth reading and studying it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster (I understand that you believe you are circumventing the rules of the forum by not mentioning any specific posters, but if you want a duel of personal insults, your meaning is clear. Who do you think you are fooling? We aren't supposed to be making personal insults. Nonetheless, this kind of rhetoric says much more about you that it does about us DemocRATS. It really doesn't bother us).