Originally Posted by MagnumPI

The first two. It's a legal bribe to the most corrupt organization, ever. And I imagine it's only legal until you piss someone off. Then you're Enron or Bernie Madoff.

Originally Posted by Botnst

It is illegal for a lobbyist to bribe or attempt to bribe a congressman or any fed official, for that matter. So in order for it to be illegal there must be a quid pro quo (or offer) transaction. Nor can a member of congress accept a bribe.

So that takes care of the legal aspect of being a lobbyist. In fact, lobbying is a protected right enumerated in the constitution (petitioning congress). Most of us only like the lobbyists who agree with us and hate the other fellows' lobbyist as a threat to democracy or civilization or whatever.

Now explain how lobbying is unethical.

Originally Posted by sjh

There are online tools to measure the level of eruditeness and clarity.

Care to run your last 50 posts through and compare to mine?

Tests Document Readability

Edit Central

Originally Posted by MagnumPI

Actually, payments are defined separately, ergo, not a petition. That's legalese at it's worst. Moreover, if it's a protected right, then why is it defined separately from a bribe(legally)?

The government is a monopoly of force. It is funded through theft and extortion. Currying favor directly through bribery is in essence racketeering.

Originally Posted by Botnst

I'm not sure I understand the first paragraph, but I'll take a shot at it. Bribery of a federal official is illegal. Paying a member of congress to vote for a certain outcome is a bribe and it is illegal. Former Rep Cunningham (R-CA) is in jail for accepting a bribe for his vote. That's a fair example. I'm sure without much effort we could find more.

Petitioning congress is a protected right in the constitution. Professional lobbyists are protected by that right. They can petition but cannot bribe. I admit that there are many times when that line seems awfully fine.

2. Government is [has] a monopoly of force. True. That's by design and intent. At one time the states' armies were considered a balance against federal force. That issue was settled in 1865.

3. It is funded by theft and extortion. I partially disagree (leaving aside the point that it is constitutionally sanctioned). It is funded by extortion, not theft.

4. Currying favor directly through bribery is in essence racketeering. That's why it's illegal.

Originally Posted by MagnumPI

So, basically, you don't think that in giving someone large sums of money, nor calling other companies to do the same, nor paying for vacations, and whatever else comes with any expectation whatsoever? Or that we're going to "play that game"? Because, I'm not.

If a radio show hosts a contest, family members can't even participate. But Congress gets a pass on basic conflict-of-interest laws because ________. And say those laws didn't exist, and those contests were continually won by family members and those close to the prize. They'd lose credibility quite quickly. Yet, Congress, in the same fashion, MUST continue to be taken seriously?

Tax is extortion, then theft. If you don't pay, they kidnap you, and take it anyway. It does both. Not to mention imminent domain and things of that nature.

And to all points Constitutional, it was signed by 38 guys. None of them were me.

Originally Posted by Botnst

The first portion in which you energetically, if haphazardly allege ill-defined instances that may or may not constitute bribery I'll ignore until it assumes some coherency.

Taking money through threat of violence is extortion, not theft. Rally. But do recall, it is constitutional and legal. If your argument is a matter of kind and magnitude, I'm with you. If it's on principle, we're on different sides. Kidnapping is a different thing.

If we cannot agree on the primacy of the foundational document; the common ground of the cultural and political nation we have become; then all else will fail.

I wish you well.

Originally Posted by sjh

You'd see that on some fortune cookie or a protest sign.

I'm no constitutional scholar but I'm pretty sure there are specific, binding legal documents defining the nation and the relationship of the individual with the state.

Originally Posted by sjh

Nope.

As a native-born citizen one has tacitly agreed.

You think otherwise, try living that way.

Funny people who have this notion that they were created and exist in isolation completely ignoring the individual-group dynamic that has been a fundamental aspect of human existence for ten's (if not hundred's) of thousands of years.

Originally Posted by MagnumPI

Dodge, miss, dodge. If that's good enough for you, it's good enough for me. The country was founded on individual liberty. How can a collectivizing document even feign legitimacy?
/

Originally Posted by MagnumPI

What about the natives, or a lesser degree, Amish? How can you consent to something you can't read or even know exists? Asinine.

Originally Posted by sjh

I received this e-mail from a friend. I do not know if the claims are correct. If so, Cain is a VERY impressive individual.

Please note, these are not words and I would have written them differently. I'd like to know if there is any FACTUAL error.

--


Here's his bio:
Bachelor's degree in Mathematics.
Master's degree in Computer Science.
Mathematician for the Navy, where he worked on missile ballistics.
Computer systems analyst for Coca-Cola.
VP of Corporate Data Systems and Services for Pillsbury

All achieved before reaching the age of 35. Since he reached the top of the information systems world, he changed careers!

Business Manager. Took charge of Pillsbury's 400 Burger King restaurants in the Philadelphia area, which were the company's poorest performers in the country. Spent the first nine months learning the business from the ground up, cooking hamburger and yes, cleaning toilets. After three years he had turned them into the company's best performers.

Godfather's Pizza CEO. Was asked by Pillsbury to take charge of their Godfather's Pizza chain (which was on the verge of bankruptcy). He made it profitable in 14 months.

In 1988 he led a buyout of the Godfather's Pizza chain from Pillsbury. He was now the owner of a restaurant chain. Again he reached the top of the ladder of another industry.

He was also chairman of the National Restaurant Association during this time. This is a group that interacts with government on behalf of the restaurant industry, and it gave him political experience from the non-politician side.
Having reached the top of a second industry, he changed careers again!

Adviser to the Federal Reserve System. Herman Cain went to work for the Federal Reserve Banking System advising them on how monetary policy changes would affect American businesses.

Chairman of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank. He worked his way up to the chairmanship of a regional Federal Reserve bank. This is only one step below the chairmanship of the entire Federal Reserve System (the top banking position in the country). This position allowed him to see how monetary policy is made from the inside, and understand the political forces that impact the monetary system.

After reaching the top of the banking industry, he changed careers for a fourth time!

Writer and public speaker. He then started to write and speak on leadership. His books include Speak as a Leader, CEO of Self, Leadership is Common Sense, andThey Think You're Stupid.

Radio Host. Around 2007, after a remarkable 40 year career, he started hosting a radio show on WSB in Atlanta (the largest talk radio station in the country).

He did all this starting from rock bottom (his father was a chauffeur and his mother was a maid). When you add up his accomplishments in his life, including reaching the top of three unrelated industries: information systems, business management, and banking, Herman Cain may have the most impressive resume of anyone that has run for the presidency in the last half century.