| reply to old_wiz_60
Re: Corruption said by old_wiz_60:Absolutely! I wonder how much he was promised or paid while still working for the FCC? ALL government agencies are so corrupt that it's hard to figure out which ones are honest. The FCC and DOJ are certainly not honest.
Fixed that for you by just changing one lousy word!!
--
The Firefox alternative.
»www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/ |
|
|
|
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9:How is that corruption? Are you serious? Its an enormous conflict of interest, not to mention suggests serious lapses of partiality and ethics.
I can't believe you even suggest this passes the smell test. |
|
1 edit | reply to Linklist
said by Linklist: It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury.
Funny you never mention that about our Defense industry, and its best friend the State Department which has spent enough money in the past decades to give every American a house and health care 5 times over.
And yet we have nothing to show for it but more enemies. |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | reply to DataRiker
He has a different job now. It smells just fine. You may not like his positions or arguments, but I'm hard pressed to see a conflict of interest. |
|
CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| It would be a conflict of interest if he used his former position of power to influence people that he used to work with or his connections to pull strings that others don't have access to. Lets face it, anyone with half a brain knows that is exactly why he was hired as a lobbyist.
It would also be corruption if he made 'arrangements' for this new job while he was still in office which included (for instance) reducing the regulatory authority of the agency.
Would you have a problem if the AFL/CIO started offering the Secretary of Dept of Labor a multimillion dollar lobbying position for when she retired? And then she in fact took it?
Not only does this smell but it is more proof that our entire political system stinks to high hell. |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | "If" That's why corruption is difficult to demonstrate/prove. The accusations are full of conjecture and hyperbole.
One way to prevent this "corruption" is to pay our public representatives/regulators significantly more money with tons of benefits and a nice healthy pension above what they already receive. Then prevent them from further employment once they leave public office.
I simply do not see that happening. |
|
| As far as I'm concerned there is no "IF". Taking a lobbying position from a company you were supposed to regulate is immoral, unethical, slimy, and just plain wrong. |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Morality loses every time. Unethical? Maybe. Slimy? Politics. Wrong? Your perspective. |
|
| I actually feel sorry for you having to defend such ridiculous positions.
Saying you don't see a conflict of interest ( which this is the very definition of ) is so over the top, nobody can take you seriously. |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | You don't need feel sorry for me for anything. I explain my positions and I'll stand by them until someone is able to convince me otherwise. You haven't, yet.
Wouldn't the conflict of interest, if it existed, have occurred while he was at the FCC?
said by Dictionary.com :conflict of interest
noun
1. the circumstance of a public officeholder, business executive, or the like, whose personal interests might benefit from his or her official actions or influence: The senator placed his stocks in trust to avoid possible conflict of interest.
2. the circumstance of a person who finds that one of his or her activities, interests, etc., can be advanced only at the expense of another of them. |
|
| This is too silly to even argue. |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Because you can't? You have yet to explain any conflict of interest. The man left public service for a private company in a business sector that he was knowledgeable of. If he gave favors as a commissioner with promise of future employment, then you have an argument. |
|
| He regulated the very company he is working for. Sorry you don't understand. |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Sorry you can't seem to understand that he had a job then and he has a different job now. That does not guarantee a conflict of interest. IMO, he can't have a conflict of interest now. He's done with his regulatory authority. He may have had a conflict of interest as a commissioner if he was working on securing his current job through promises and favors. |
|
| said by openbox9: He may have had a conflict of interest as a commissioner if he was working on securing his current job through promises and favors.
Your getting warmer
Do you think he was given his current job because he is such a good guy? |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | I don't need to get warmer. I understand the situation just fine.
I stated it a couple of times in this thread already, but I'll say it one more time. He doesn't currently have a conflict of interest as was implied. Any potential conflict of interest would've occurred during his last appointment. |
|
1 edit | said by openbox9:I understand the situation just fine.
No you absolutely don't.
I know people of every variety of political background and this is probably the universal ire of any American. The circular path between regulators and lobbyist. It is absolutely wrong on a grand scale.
It is unbelievable that anybody under any circumstance could defend it. |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | I'm not defending it. In fact, I posted previously an option/suggestion to prevent regulators from moving to private industry in the same regulatory sector.
Don't tell me I don't understand something. You don't know me and it's flat out rude. |
|
| Yet you don't see the conflict of interest.
Makes sense...... |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Obviously this discussion is going nowhere. You're focusing on something that may have happened, not what is currently occurring. |
|
