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.

Speaking from experience?

These guys are making all these promises but neglecting the fact that they will not be implemented without the consent of Congress. Does anyone think Congress and their corporate handlers will go for tbe 9/9/9?

I bet no.

__________________
Sent from an agnostic abacus

2014 C250 21,XXX my new DD ** 2013 GLK 350 18,000 Wife's new DD**

- With out god, life is everything.
- God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller as time moves on..." Neil DeGrasse Tyson
- You can pray for me, I'll think for you.
- When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

Yes, there are MANY that believe that such a plan could be enacted. The interest in a Flat Tax has been on the rise for years.

What, are you having trouble believing that a Black Man could have had all these accomplishments and come up with a really good plan on top of that?

You wouldn't be a closet racist would you?

__________________
2001 SLK 320 six speed manual
2014 Porsche Cayenne six speed manual

Annoy a Liberal, Read the Constitution

Damn you're good. That is exactly what I wrote. And here I thought I was doing a better job at hiding my racism.

__________________
Sent from an agnostic abacus

2014 C250 21,XXX my new DD ** 2013 GLK 350 18,000 Wife's new DD**

- With out god, life is everything.
- God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller as time moves on..." Neil DeGrasse Tyson
- You can pray for me, I'll think for you.
- When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

No, but I'd be happy post some arbitrary BS if you'd like?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?
/