You’re free to believe that, but it just doesn’t have any weight in GD without a cite. Renob at least has experience working in the field.
Why do we care what you say? There must be reasons for you to believe what you are saying–factual events and numbers–so what are those? And can you show that such events are predominate?
I by now you should realize that everyone’s idea of what the “problem” with the world is very different and likely totally irrelevant to what the actual problem is.
Sage Rat: No one asked you to care what I say…learning from you is a great enlightenment…Its very difficult to cite instances of corruption without getting involved in law suits…
I"m certain that you know this already, but many, many years ago laws were passed to prevent pharmaceutical companies from providing entertainment at Drs conventions and putting on lavish parties to prevent Drs from writing prescriptions for those that put on the entertainment.
I’m certain that you also know, however, that lobbyists can contribute to meetings that congressmen may attend.
Renob convinced you that you are right? Believe him. Thats how much I care about your convincing arguments.
To attempt to keep Drs. for writing prescriptions specifically because the drug co. wined and dined the physician…just to make this clear.
So, doctors were writing illegal prescriptions, and politicians passed a law to stop making illegal prescriptions–ergo, politicians are bribed by lobbysists?
Well, once we understand this case and what it has to do with the topic, that’s still one instance.
Do you have any experience in the political field? Have you ever worked with Congressional staff members and lobbyists?
Perhaps. Asking a simple question will easily show the fallacy of your logic. Consider the case of Senator Chuck Schumer, perhaps the leader in the Senate in pushing gun control legislation. According to you, he holds this position because he’s been “paid off” by the gun control lobby. If politics worked as you think, then all the NRA would have to do to change his position is simply throw more money at him.
Of course, that’s not how it works. The NRA does not give money to anti-gun politicians to sway their votes. The NRA gives money to pro-gun politicians because it wants to keep them in office. It’s not giving money to sway votes; it’s giving money to retain or elect people who agree with them.
That’s complete crap. Almost every politician I’ve ever encountered, left or right, votes in a way that will benefit his or her state. The politican has loyalty to his or her constituents first and the party second. Of course, it’s only logical that many times the two overlap, since if you come from a state full of Republicans, these constituents will expect you to vote in accordance with the party.
Let’s look at some examples – The Democrats are the gun control party, and yet Harry Reid supported the gun liability lawsuit legislation. Why? Nevada is a pro-gun state. The White House is very much opposed to farm subsidies. Find me a Republican Senator from a farm state that is willing to go along with them on this. President Bush was adamantly opposed to the transportation bill he recently signed, but he realized that he had no support in this opposition since the bill had something for every state and Congressional district in it. Republican Congressmen and Senators supported this legislation that benefited their constituents in defiance of the President.
I could go on, but you get the idea. Any study of legislation in Congress will confirm my contention.
Actually, it’s not. Libel law provides a great protection against lawsuits, since you have to be knowingly lying. If you believe what you are saying is the truth, you are protected. Look at the Internet – there are a ton of sites out there alleging corruption at all levels of the government. They aren’t getting sued. So please give some specifics about this corruption you think is so prevalent.