Just curious about the feelings of people from all backgrounds about whether or not this scenario is ethical.

A. A candidate hires lawyers to run his campaign.

B. Lawyers use their connections to raise money for the candidate.

C. The lawyers also represent large corporations.

D. The candidate promises that he will vote AGAINST legislation that favors the large corporations.

E. The candidate then changes his mind and votes FOR legislation that favors the large corporations.


Anybody else troubled by this type of scenario?

Sounds like politics to me, ever since the 2nd president of this country.

So....ethical?
Well, either every President of our time has been an unethical grabasstic pig

or its just the way you have to get things done




is it unethical to bribe your top employee's with an incentive check so that they'll do their jobs ?


is it unethical for a judge to allow a plea bargin to get you out of his court room so you dont waste everyone's time, despite the fact that a crime has been committed?

As i've been saying all along in my debate with JetX (check my signature)

A true leader emphasizes GOALS

Concentrate on the goal - not how you get there.
Because the "how's" will change day after day, as new circumstances rear their ugly head

As long as the goal doesnt change, you still have a good leader.




a vote is a vote - doesnt mean it'll get passed

nice aversion to Obama though

i almost didnt know who the OP was talking about

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
is it unethical to bribe your top employee's with an incentive check so that they'll do their jobs ?

The implication of this statement is stunning for its honesty.

When somebody is running for public office, the people are the "employers," not the "filthy men" trotting out their chosen candidate.

A true leader emphasizes GOALS

Concentrate on the goal - not how you get there.
Because the "how's" will change day after day, as new circumstances rear their ugly head

As long as the goal doesnt change, you still have a good leader.

This is nonsense. The goal can't be separated from the HOW. If your goal is to be worth a million dollars you better believe it matters whether or not you embezzle the money from your company to get it.

This is the exact type of lame mentality that enables corruption to thrive. It's this type of thinking that IS the problem.

Here's an example:

The goal might be energy independence. We can produce 8 times more ethanol from sugar than corn. A politician can decide to take money from us at gun point and give it to his corn-ethanol buddies who will make millions. The country might even reach the goal of energy independence using corn-ethanol.

But at what cost? The public will have been unnecessarily fleeced in the process of the goal being met.

Is this really the type of system you advocate?

nice aversion to Obama though

i almost didnt know who the OP was talking about

Who said I was talking about Obama?

It just happens that Obama's situation fits the scenario, as do many others.

I think you skipped the part where you say "yeah, it's unethical and machiavellian, but HE'S MY GUY!". A bonus check is no more a bribe than a regular pay check. More productive=more compensation.


Here's to hoping you don't mind when the other people bring up examples of McCain repeating this behavior. Sycophant.

politicians make promises they don't keep. happens all the time. sometimes they lie, sometimes they simply cannot do what they wanted.

clinton health care reform
bush sr's read my lips moment

to name two


a while back an associate of mine came to me with his client. seems his client's son was running for something here in NY and he was seeking a donation. the father said we'd probably be in line for some gov't work as a thank you if his son was elected. I was against it but my associate went ahead and donated some money to the campaign. so far, 5 or more years into this guy's terms and my associate hasn't seen a single bit of work.

did he lie to get some money? was he unable to send business to my associate? don't know. I do know that politicians start out wanting to do things and as they move up the political food chain it gets harder for them but they usually keep talking about what they want to do.

I was out with a very good friend the other night. he's an elected official (entry level - not the guy mentioned above) and we were talking about the upcoming presidential election and he made a comment I found rather interesting. he was talking about all these folks that try and get the nomination from their party. he was laughing about the fact that many of them come from states where they have less constituents than he has in his district. he also thought it was somewhat comical that, in his two terms, he has done more for his district and, therefore, more for more people, than some of these senators have done for their entire states in their one or two terms. just trying to point out that the lower level guys seem to do more and impact their constituents more than the higher level guys (until you hit the white house, then you have the ability to screw everyone up with one signature)

A goal can be seperated from the "how"

ask anybody who's ever lead anyone


the fruther you go along, the more problems that arise

yes, i condone this type of system


its the same system we've had since the founding of this country

goal = prosperity

is there one direct path that leads to this goal?

no

and it changes over time



sorry your biased against obama forces you to disagree

[edit on 7/10/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]