"Draining the Swamp" Part II

Originally posted by no1marauder
Are you going to play this broken record in every single thread? Of course, everybody knows that corruption in the individual States is completely non-existent.

You at least have some hope that the superior powers in the federal government can set things right.

But when it is the federal government that is corrupt, you have no hope of resolution. Even corporations with corruption can be subject to the Feds.

But people like you only want to empower them further.

Originally posted by whodey
You at least have some hope that the superior powers in the federal government can set things right.

But when it is the federal government that is corrupt, you have no hope of resolution. Even corporations with corruption can be subject to the Feds.

But people like you only want to empower them further.

No, I want to empower the People, who you think are too stupid and worthless to run their country.

Originally posted by no1marauder
No, I want to empower the People, who you think are too stupid and worthless to run their country.

Looks to me like you two might actually agree a bit if whodey could just drop the chronic stultifying sarcasm.

Whodey, no1 said he wants to "empower the People" against government corruption. So ... you disagree?

http://twentytwowords.com/trumps-education-pick-said-potential-grizzlies-are-a-reason-to-have-guns-in-schools/?utm_source=34915&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=influencer&utm_campaign=stewart


Betsy DeVos said there should be guns in schools because there might be grizzlies some places.

This is the best Trump could find to put in charge of education. Good god this sounds like an SNL sketch.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
http://twentytwowords.com/trumps-education-pick-said-potential-grizzlies-are-a-reason-to-have-guns-in-schools/?utm_source=34915&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=influencer&utm_campaign=stewart


Betsy DeVos said there should be guns in schools because there might be grizzlies some places.

This is the best Trump could find to put in charge of education. Good god this sounds like an SNL sketch.

Just think: if there were guns in school, they wouldn't have even thought of trying to foist that hoax of Sandy Hook on us.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'm not so sure. If "money is speech" as Scalia so elegantly put it, why can't I "speak" really loudly with a half million bucks?

EDIT: Can't find for sure that Scalia did say that and the theory comes from Buckley v. Valeo, so I'll withdraw the attribution while still asking the rhetorical question.

Free speech gives you a right to speak to the public during an election season according to Buckley, CU, et al. It doesn't give you the right to pay to access federal employees in the course of their duties in contravention of a hypothetical federal law. Even Scalia would not argue that outright graft is protected by the First Amendment.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Just think: if there were guns in school, they wouldn't have even thought of trying to foist that hoax of Sandy Hook on us.

feel free to eat sht and die, you disgusting worm

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
Looks to me like you two might actually agree a bit if whodey could just drop the chronic stultifying sarcasm.

Whodey, no1 said he wants to "empower the People" against government corruption. So ... you disagree?

No.

How then can you do that when a sitting President rules by edict?

Originally posted by sh76
Free speech gives you a right to speak to the public during an election season according to Buckley, CU, et al. It doesn't give you the right to pay to access federal employees in the course of their duties in contravention of a hypothetical federal law. Even Scalia would not argue that outright graft is protected by the First Amendment.

Playing devil's advocate, I am quite unsure that distinction is meaningful given the "petition clause" of the First Amendment. As stated in Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri (2011):

Both speech and petition are integral to the democratic process, although not necessarily in the same way. The right to petition allows citizens to express their ideas, hopes, and concerns to their government and their elected representatives, whereas the right to speak fosters the public exchange of ideas that is integral to deliberative democracy as well as to the whole realm of ideas and human affairs. Beyond the political sphere, both speech and petition advance personal expression, although the right to petition is generally concerned with expression directed to the government seeking redress of a grievance.[14]

As stated in the Wiki First Amendment article:

According to the Supreme Court, "redress of grievances" is to be construed broadly: it includes not solely appeals by the public to the government for the redressing of a grievance in the traditional sense, but also, petitions on behalf of private interests seeking personal gain.[229] The right not only protects demands for "a redress of grievances" but also demands for government action.

I'm having a hard time seeing how the logic of Citizen's United, coupled with the cases mentioned in the "Petition and Assembly" section of that article, don't logically lead to the conclusion that the paying of money for access (without the assurance of a quid pro quo) is constitutionally protected.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
feel free to eat sht and die, you disgusting worm

I got tired of eating their ess-aich-eye-tee awhile back and am currently refusing any offers for more portions of the same, thank you nonetheless.

At this point, death is penciled in, albeit a continually postponed date.
If I get any updates, I've moved you to the top of the 'notify first' list, out of respect for everything about you AND the excellent suggestion.
I def owe you at least that much.

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
Looks to me like you two might actually agree a bit if whodey could just drop the chronic stultifying sarcasm.

Whodey, no1 said he wants to "empower the People" against government corruption. So ... you disagree?

Our positions will never meet. Marauder is for positive rights and I'm for negative rights. I want a limited government, and he wants an all controlling government. I believe in state rights and he believes that is a thing of the past that should be abandoned in favor of Federal rule over all. I don't believe in perfect all inclusive answers to our problems that is a one size fits all, and Marauder does.

The only people Marauder wants to empower are those who agree with him. Everyone else can jump off a bridge. Conversely, I'm in favor of conservatives states and liberal states running their own affairs.

Originally posted by whodey
Our positions will never meet. Marauder is for positive rights and I'm for negative rights. I want a limited government, and he wants an all controlling government. I believe in state rights and he believes that is a thing of the past that should be abandoned in favor of Federal rule over all. I don't believe in perfect all inclusive answers to our proble ...[text shortened]... Conversely, I'm in favor of conservatives states and liberal states running their own affairs.

Actually I don't believe in a single thing you claimed I did. Since I have explained my positions on this Forum many times and you should know better, you are either an idiot or a liar, most likely both.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'm not so sure. If "money is speech" as Scalia so elegantly put it, why can't I "speak" really loudly with a half million bucks?

EDIT: Can't find for sure that Scalia did say that and the theory comes from Buckley v. Valeo, so I'll withdraw the attribution while still asking the rhetorical question.

"SCALIA: You can't separate speech from -- from -- from the money that -- that facilitates the speech."

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/justice-scalia-money-speech

Exact similarity? Reliable source?

YouTube

samantha bee on swamp creatures

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Just think: if there were guns in school, they wouldn't have even thought of trying to foist that hoax of Sandy Hook on us.

Killed at Sandy Hook included 6 school staff and 16 6-year-olds and 4 7-year-olds.

6 and 7. That's first- and second-graders, their lives just beginning.

How dare you call this tragedy a hoax, you unfeeling piece of garbage.