1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Jury Convicts Five in Federal Vote Fraud

Discussion in 'The OT' started by Richard King, Jul 1, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    0
    Mar 25, 2002
    The only party overregistering and over voting in Ohio was the Democratic party. YOur site appears to be a Lynix training site.
     
  2. pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    :lol: :lol: :lol:
    Ok, .... first a web page titled "war profiteers", well I'm sure it will give an honest and unbiased slant on the news :sure: :rolleyes:

    But that aside, the congressman sold his house, which was purchased by someone else who lost money on the deal when he decided to resell it a year or so later -- and that in the California real estate market where all houses were overpriced. And its an investigation, no proof there - and if there was, you would be saying the 5-10% profit the company might have earned somehow balanced out the personal financial loss of the resale of the house? Hmmm, makes you wonder what Bill Gates did to "earn" his 85% profit margin on Windows :D

    If you want to make a point that business leaders are "cozy" with lawmakers - I'll agree with you. They are with democrats and with republicans. And they are anybody and everybody who has a vested interest in legislation being debated by congress - not just defence contractors. If that kind on lobbying bothers you (and it should) I hope you are willing to kick out the business cronies of the liberal democrat side, along with all the labor union smoozing.

    My point is that every dime spent on a defence contract is watched like a hawk. From floor audits to check and see if every hour someone claims was worked on a project was really worked, to overview of all expenses -- and all for a profit margin typically half that of commercial business. Sorry, I'm not buying the argument.
     
  3. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    Ok, .... first a web page titled "war profiteers", well I'm sure it will give an honest and unbiased slant on the news

    So what is untrue with the article? You will find the same info on every site reporting this news. You talk about bias... but you have it. The fact that the FBI is investigating is important here

    If you want to make a point that business leaders are "cozy" with lawmakers - I'll agree with you. They are with democrats and with republicans.

    I never said it was a partisan issue, did I, You just assumed it. My point is that the defense budget is enormous and the sweetheart deals and graft happens on a greater scale than purchasing a few votes with cigarettes.

    My point is that every dime spent on a defence contract is watched like a hawk. From floor audits to check and see if every hour someone claims was worked on a project was really worked, to overview of all expenses -- and all for a profit margin typically half that of commercial business. Sorry, I'm not buying the argument.

    Then you are quite naive. I worked for the feds and saw first hand the corruption to the benfit of "favored" vendors. The fact that some of the grafters are caught proves my point.
     
  4. pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    No I'm not naive. You are biased and see sinister action behind every lunch meeting. Again, where is your proof? You say some of the grafters are caught - who, when, and where. The only thing you've pointed to is an investigation. Sorry, that doesn't mean guilt -- at least not in the US. So you want to claim graft is in the minority of the budget, and not in the rest?

    Again, look at the profitability of defence contractors and compare that to commercial enterprises - commercial does better. Defence contracts are heavily monitored. It is not uncommon for floor audits to see if work is being done as reported. The defence budget is less that half the total budget - and of the defence budget, over 1/4 of it is nothing but pay for the troops.

    No, you've offered no proof for your claims. And even proving widespread graft (which you haven't) isolated to defence contractors (which you haven't either), you have yet to even offer a wild idea how that constitutes "buying votes" in an election process. Buying influence once elected, maybe (if true). But buying votes to get one person or another elected? No.
     
  5. pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    Incidently, if you really believe graft is as widespread as you seem to think - why on earth are you a liberal democrat? :lol: Come on, a large, all powerful federal government can only feed such graft. A much smaller, more state and local controled, government (keep the rascals where you can keep your eyes on them) would seem to be less prone to graft. The liberal democrats are the ones wanting an all-powerful federal state, centralized power (where the lobbiest has the most influence), and local citizen control be damned.
     
  6. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Sure, let's mention both!

    "Do they(corporations) influence politics any more than, say the labor unions?" In fact they do. By this admittedly old(1996) link, by about a 7 to 1 margin. But I doubt in the last ten years that trend has been reversed. What do you think??? http://lpa.igc.org/lpv31/lp04.htm
    OK, it's a union link. But let's say they far overstate the ratio. Let's assume corporation only outspend unions by say 4/1 or 3 or even 2/1. Even by the most conservative estimates, corporations' influence is at leat twice that of unions. And this holds true for BOTH Republicans AND Democrats.


    "Do they(corporations) influence politics any more than the under-the-cover deals between the Chinese and the Clinton white house?"

    Are you serious? What "under-the-cover deals between the Chinese and the Clinton white house" significantly benefit the Chinese to the detriment of the US? How about ONE concrete example? The same charges, IN SPADES, could be made about the Bushs and their connections to the Saudis. But "charges" is all they will ever be because a GOP Congress will never investigate them. And as for the "detriment" to the US of these connections, how 'bout 9/11 for starters!?!

    As for your assertion "They are usually made up of Americans and American". You might want to rethink that one.:scratchin Foreign investors and foreign NATIONS are a massive, and growing, percentage of stock holders in US markets, often holding controlling interests in major US firms, Diamler/Chrysler springs to mind as prime example. To think these investors don't, or have no desire to, influence corporate campaign contributions is to put it charitably, naive.

    OTOH, although labor unions don't usually restrict their membership to US citizens, it's probably fair to say they have a far higher percentage of US citizenship among their ranks than say, US corporate shareholders. And regardless of citizenship, members of US unions almost exclsusively LIVE in the US and share a vested interest in the continued health of the US economy.

    I'm all for banning labor union campaign contributions and lobbielsts, but ONLY if corporate contributions and lobbiests are banned at the same time. Let's shut down K Street. I'm with you on that one!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page