"Draining the Swamp" Part II

Originally posted by no1marauder
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.

He's most certainly both.

Originally posted by no1marauder
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.

You continually argue with me for supporting state rights

You continually support one size fits all entitlements like the single payer.

You are perfectly fine with a divided country so long as the government continues to be centralized and makes at least one half of the country miserable.

I, on the other hand, support dividing the power so that all the people of both conservative and liberal America can be represented instead of only representing half of the country and illegals coming across the border

Originally posted by whodey

You continually support one size fits all entitlements like the single payer.

I think the main reason for that is that unlike you, no1 does not get a stiffy from sending kids with cancer to their graves.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I think the main reason for that is that unlike you, no1 does not get a stiffy from sending kids with cancer to their graves.

Who is getting, or has gotten, sent to their graves?

You do realize that the government turns down more people for medical treatment than private insurance, right?

Any time you have either the government or private health care, you are essentially begging that entity to "do the right thing". Well guess what, they don't always do the right thing. Just ask the Veterans at the VA who were put on death lists cuz they were too sick and too expensive to treat.

I reckon marauder is the one who gets "stiffy" when mentioning veterans. I reckon he would rather give that medical care to illegal aliens.

Originally posted by no1marauder
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 ide ...[text shortened]... ing of money for access (without the assurance of a quid pro quo) is constitutionally protected.

Well that parenthetical is the whole thing isn't it? Government officials should not be offering the quid pro quo in the first place.

What I don't get is how you can view activities such as those described in the OP as obvious corruption, but extend the Clintons your credulity when they sell government favors for speaking fees and "donations" to their giant money laundering scheme and then destroy the evidence from their illegal e-mail server to make sure it stays covered up. Your partisan/ideological blinders work as well as the rest of ours, it seems.

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
Well that parenthetical is the whole thing isn't it? Government officials should not be offering the quid pro quo in the first place.

What I don't get is how you can view activities such as those described in the OP as obvious corruption, but extend the Clintons your credulity when they sell government favors for speaking fees and "donations" to their g ...[text shortened]... stays covered up. Your partisan/ideological blinders work as well as the rest of ours, it seems.

I'm using quid pro quo as a legal term of art; IF a government official says to someone "Give me a million dollars and I'll vote in X manner" that is prosecutable as soliciting a bribe. However, if the same government official says "Give me a million dollars and you get preferred access to me" that is not.

The second paragraph is hardly worthy of a response given my severe criticisms of the Clintons for accepting money for speaking fees from bankers and other schemes. My "ideological blinders" have prevented me from voting for any Clinton for anything since 1992.

Originally posted by whodey
You continually argue with me for supporting state rights

You continually support one size fits all entitlements like the single payer.

You are perfectly fine with a divided country so long as the government continues to be centralized and makes at least one half of the country miserable.

I, on the other hand, support dividing the power so that all t ...[text shortened]... presented instead of only representing half of the country and illegals coming across the border

Here's the US Constitution: http://constitutionus.com/

Find one mention of States having "rights".

Your hysterical nonsense notwithstanding the vast majority of laws and regulations passed in the US are done by State and local governments and there are a myriad of differences between each State and the next. This "all encompassing Federal government" ruled over by Presidential edict is a laughable fiction of your diseased mind.

Originally posted by JS357
"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?

A good find; I was vainly looking through judicial decisions.

Originally posted by whodey
Who is getting, or has gotten, sent to their graves?

Americans without access to adequate health care.

Originally posted by Suzianne
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.

don't explain. not on this. this along with holocaust denying are some of those opinions that automatically qualify you as turd