dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
2
« The People
This is a sub-selection from Corruption
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9 to DataRiker

Premium Member

to DataRiker

Re: Corruption

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.

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

DataRiker

Premium Member

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?
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

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.

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

1 edit

DataRiker

Premium Member

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.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

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.

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

DataRiker

Premium Member

Yet you don't see the conflict of interest.

Makes sense......
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Obviously this discussion is going nowhere. You're focusing on something that may have happened, not what is currently occurring.

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

4 edits

DataRiker

Premium Member

Do you really think he goes through normal channels when dealing with his former office???? The same normal channels others people/companies are forced to go through.

Is that not a conflict of interest??? Do I really have to explain this??
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

said by DataRiker:

Do I really have to explain this??

Apparently so, because if that's occurring, it's not his conflict of interest, it's his former officemates'.

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

DataRiker

Premium Member

It is extremely obvious you don't know what a conflict of interest is.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Umm, I can argue the same about you.

I'm done with this silly discussion.

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

DataRiker

Premium Member

said by openbox9 See Profile]
I'm done with this silly discussion.

:

Declaring that a former regulator lobbying his old office is not a conflict of interest does make for a silly discussion.

Bizarre really.

openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

My point was, who's conflict of interest it is.

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

DataRiker

Premium Member

The whole point of a conflict of interest is it doesn't matter.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

It sure does.
« The People
This is a sub-selection from Corruption