Ten Most Corrupt Politicians Include Clinton, Obama, Huckabee

As it is apparently an independent source, as far as I can tell anyway and I research fairly well, I would say it's pertinent to the issues..

(Except for Craig) ((Stupid to list him for be a little strange in his sexual habits, mens room and all))

Good find TA

Semper

reply to post by The Vagabond


Excellent post
Very thorough.

Rudy Giuliani- A mayor with dillusions of grandeur and a snowball's chance in hell there's a reason he all but skipped the early primaries, and there's a reason that doing so has NEVER paid off before.

I really wonder if Rudy is angling for a job as a Republican VP or even Secretary of State.

He's got to know his obnoxious style, as well as his doubtful ethics record, blatant 911 opportunism, not to mention the pictures of him in drag pretty much make him unelectable as a Republican Presidential primary candidate

[edit on 1/14/08 by xmotex]

Just gotta make one quick little comment here.

I love how supporters of one candidate find some trash on the others and claim theirs is the proverbial messiah, but when others claim a similar thing on THEIR candidate, they claim it's all B.S. ALL politicians have done something shady in their life, sorry to say. Hell most people on this planet have done something similar at one point in their lives.

This is why I stay out of most political forums here. The politicians are crooked and so are most people's views of them.

EDIT: grammaration

[edit on 1/15/2008 by Fiverz]

Originally posted by jsobecky
...It's one thing if a bad donation slips by the staff, it's quite another to be made aware of a bad donation and do nothing to fix it.

What I am wondering is how in any campaign can one avoid being sent money from rogue groups like this? You really can't. Shall we start digging up every contribution to the Clinton or Obama campaign, tracking them down, and crying fowl at every turn?

While I understand your position, I also understand that some people went to some great lengths, spurred on by the ridiculous newsletter reports, to tie in one contribution from a racist organization, trying to make a case that he is a racist. But you have been given several reasons from reputable sources why this information is false, and clearly a no-basis smear campaign. Now if we had reports all over the place of 100's of these groups contributing, I most definitely would be concerned myself. But that is simply just not the case.

But it's not that one thing all by itself. It's that plus the newsletter plus who knows what else. It just gives me a sense of unease, that's all.

Interesting. Since when does jsobecky side with "who knows what else?" Remove that, remove the newsletters, remove the one contribution, and you are left with not a whole lot to argue upon. You just don't like him, let's face it. And that's fine. I just wish you had better, more solid reasons not to. But I appreciate your opinion, regardless.

Now Vaga, I am surprised. To have you come in here and make a case that all of a sudden JudicialWatch has turned into a democrat-bashing organization goes beyond all I know about you. It just doesn't make sense. What in the heck are you up to? Are you mad that your candidate has appeared on the list? JudicalWatch has a long standing tradition of being non-partisan, and exposing the truth on everyone with no particular bias. This is coming down to facing the facts, my friend. I am sorry if you don't like what they are.

I want to remind everyone that it is me who has chosen to print those particular names in the title of this thread. Not as a smear campaign with no basis, but because these particular people are running for President, and that's all. Not because I support Ron Paul. If his name was on that list he'd be up there too, because fair is fair. I didn't even bother with Giuliani, because judging from the results so far, he really is not going to be a player. Not to mention there is only so much room for a title.

It is important that people come to their own conclusions based on fact. And I will trust JudicalWatch a million times over any rogue, biased effort from the opposition. Shouldn't you?

And I will trust JudicalWatch

I don't trust JW any more than I trust Fox, CNN, Rush or anyone. Not as a single solitary source...

BUT!!!!!

This was put out as information and that is what is needed during an election, information....

Take in all the information you can dig up about a candidate, and then make an informed decision...

If everyone would do that, what a wonderful process this would be...

Semper

I don't understand something. Some are concerned that Ron Paul is not returning campaign money from racists; yet it's OK for everyone else to accept huge amounts of money from corporations, which many think are just as evil as racists.
What I'm saying is that if politicians only accepted money from people/corporations that were "nice", no politician would ever have any money to campaign.
Wait a minute, maybe that's not such a bad thing, though - no more politicians.

reply to post by forestlady


My opinion here folks, just that my opinion...

The money RP received is completely irrelevant to the issue... As we are on a conspiracy board, I could just as easily say the money was given in ORDER to provoke controversy... Because those groups are afraid of RP....

See the possible line of connections?

Whether he gave it back or not, the amount was ridiculously small anyway wasn't it?

One can make a conspiracy out of anything is you are willing to twist it...

There are other, far more important issues at hand folks...

Just sayin'

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis
...I could just as easily say the money was given in ORDER to provoke controversy... Because those groups are afraid of RP....

See the possible line of connections?

That's a very interesting possibility. More stars from me.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


The circumstances are what they are my friend. I don't really consider myself to have a candidate.

On the democratic side I consider Barrack Obama the lesser of two evils, but if Edwards had a serious chance I might prefer him over Obama. If McCain can get nominated however, its a moot point because I probably won't vote Democrat at all in that case.

(Incidentally I happen to be a registered republican at the moment- I switched from "decline to state" a few months ago because I'm from a Republcan district, I have positions on both sides of the aisle, and I think that my future ambitions are more likely to be realized as a liberal Republican running at home than as a moderate democrat carpet-bagging to a blue area.)

What's more I'll say that every Democrat on that list absolutely deserves to be there, and even that as the party in power the Democrats warrant having 6 of the 10 slots.

None of that removes the fact that when this watchdog group named which Republicans ought to be watched, they were Republicans who barely warrant watching.

It seems to me that if I'm deciding whether it's Scooter Libby or John Boehner who needs to go on my list of corrupt politicians to watch, the one who actually has a future in politics might be the one who belongs there most.

Does that make Judicial Watch a rabid anti-democrat organization? No. It suggests to me that one of two things has happened:

1. They have been lazy and allowed the media to dictate their views, resulting in those who made the biggest news rather than those who ae in the position to do the most damage making their list

or

2. Some individual within their organization, perhaps a researcher assigned to someone who didn't make the list, or perhaps someone senior who actualy made the final decision, decided to pull punches on a couple of Republicans who are facing reelection in 2008.

ok Vaga, fair enough. Then who in your estimation that is running on the Republican ticket right now should be on that list?

If you are referring to the presidential ticket, I am not aware of anything from McCain or Romney which would make them quite deserving of being on the list. It would be silly for me to insist that if the two Democratic front runners are on the list then so must be the Republican front-runners.

However, as I have said, Boehner and McConnell probably belong on the list, more so than Craig and Libby, who are done for anyway. Those two changes would pretty much make me OK with the list.

The reasons that Boehner belongs on the list have close resemblance to the reasons the Huckabee and Pelosi are on the list.

It is curious to me that Pelosi made the list while her opposite number did not, despite the similarities.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
If you are referring to the presidential ticket, I am not aware of anything from McCain or Romney which would make them quite deserving of being on the list.

Ok then. Excellent. Because to be honest, the only reason I brought this article here was as it relates to the current primaries, and the importance of people knowing this information. Otherwise, we can all at anytime go over to the GAO (Government Accountability Office), BlackBoxVoting, JudicialWatch, or any other watchdog organization and dig into corruption/whistleblowing in general.

It is me making the tie between this list and the current elections, not JudicialWatch, and I think that's important.

No problem there. It does stand mentioning however that some people here, though not all of us, are in a position to do something about Boehner and McConnell during this election as well.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
No problem there. It does stand mentioning however that some people here, though not all of us, are in a position to do something about Boehner and McConnell during this election as well.

Very good point, thank you.

Edit to add:
And btw, I want to thank the ATS member who in a thread called my attention over to this list. Not sure who that was. I waited for several hours to see if that person was going to make a thread out of it, as they found it first, not me. But they didn't, so I felt it important enough to make a thread out of it.

[edit on 15-1-2008 by TrueAmerican]

You might want to take the time to ask who is funding this group... i'm not saying their findings are invalid but some of them are somewhat questionable -- especially for a top ten list. Just IMHO.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by The Vagabond



Thank you sir or madam, for pointing out what I thought was very obvious.
This list is really absurd and if I had the time I'd try and find a more balanced version of the list, if not just create one myself. It's pretty much a democratic hit job that HAD to find a way to get Obama in there somewhere. It makes some people happy to see him there.

stupid article.

All politicians are corrupt. It is goddamn human nature ffs.

Simply put to answer your questions up above, some of us have paid fines and yet it still continues on. Why do not these others pay fines and only lose their jobs if they even do lose their jobs? Life ain't fair! Life is not fair is the Lord or God decides to end your life either at any time. These type of people simply will not act any better, and it is not a political vote that political people simply get to do this. Without support, none of these type of people would be doing the things that they get by with. School-yard bullies are what they are. And also I put up with them when I was young. Do no infer that some people in this Country can start a cult up claiming his/her person superior over others. It is called - facism! Nothing else, and definitions word twisting is not what they can contend to do either.

Like the rest, while the top 10 most corrupt is nice, I'd also love to see the bottom 10 for their list.

Theres an old saying: The only honest politician nowadays is the one who stays bought