tvc184

You doubt the Democrats are worried because of the Bible?

    You want a legitimate answer?   The Supreme Court said that limiting how much you can donate to a political campaign is an unconstitutional violation of the right to freedom of speech. The Democrats don't like that ruling and want to not create a new law (which would also violate our constitutional rights) but to change the Constitution and limit free speech when it comes to politics. The Democrats say yes to changing the Constitution and limiting free speech when it comes to elections and the Republicans say no.    Ohhhh.... but let's not talk about free speech, let's call it what it has been called in this thread, bribery.   If you call it legal bribery as the title of the thread suggests, is less money just "a little bribery"? If you offer a cop $500 to drop a citation it would be a bribe but if you only offer him $250, it isn't? That is what the campaign finance laws say. You can donate to someone (bribe by the claim of this thread) and it is perfectly okay but you can only bribe to a certain extent. Tell me where that makes sense. The Dems don't mind donations and sure aren't turning down any money.... they only mind if you get more than they do. So it is okay to bribe people, just keep the bribing "under control".   There have been several such First Amendment cases that have thrown out campaign finance laws and in the most recent case (2014), the law (BCRA) allowed the "bribery"..... but you had to stop it 60 days before the election. Again, tell me where that makes any sense. Yes, you can put your money in electronic (television, radio, etc.) campaigning but you can't do it right at the end. Apparently the Dems think that bribery is perfectly okay to bribe 61 days out from an election but don't do it inside of 60 days.   And for that, they want to change the Constitution. 

I don't really believe or disbelieve these polls but I'll bet the Democrats are sweating out the election right now way more than Republicans. 

I am guessing that the way these decisions are made is by looking at resumes' (seen it a few times in my city as they have changed city managers a few times). On paper some people look good but then you start digging. Pick out a few that look good, name them as "finalists" and then start weeding them out.    I was listening on KLVI this morning (I think that was the station) and there was an interview with one of the people involved in the decision making up there. One of the things they were looking for was someone not carrying baggage. I think the way the guy put it was something like, "We are looking for someone that did not leave their last job under investigation or difficult circumstances". There seems to have been something on Chargois' packet that said he "resigned" from BISD and was looking for new opportunities or something to that effect.   While that may not be a lie, if that is what he wrote (and I think reported) then it seems at the least, disingenuous.  I think Detroit was looking for someone that wanted to be there, not someone just "looking for a job" after losing the last one. 

Hmmm.... the public is finally finding out about gumbo. 

Much was made of AZ and their new laws on immigration but current federal law allows local law enforcement to act as federal agents. As such, AZ never needed to pass their immigration law as the United States Code already allows exactly what they did.   Unfortunately 8 USC 1357 says that the Attorney General of the USA can enter into an agreement allowing local law enforcement to act in lieu of federal agents with training of the proper laws by the AG however he and his boss will not use this standing federal law. It was probably very effective which is why this administration will not use or enforce current federal law. In fact they fought it in court and when they lost part of it, they publicly said that they would refuse to enforce the laws in AZ.  

    That is true but when a state tried exactly that, it was contested in federal court and the Obama administration sided with stopping the states from doing it individually. 

I believe the article to some extent and that extent is that it is a person's opinion. I might be completely correct, it might be completely wrong and it might be (more than likely) somewhere in between.   It is like two guys that have been in the military and both fought in Iraq but giving different viewpoints or taking opposing sides in an argument all the while both of them saying, "But I have been there so I know.....". 

I won't be going until late October or early November.

  Okay, you're trolling. I get it.   You brought up Hawaii, you brought up Ukraine and you brought up people throwing stones.    I have asked many times what they have to do with each other or if you have a point. I can see by your response that you have none.    Not shocking however. 

  Yes, I can copy and paste articles also.    Is there a point to your thread? I have asked several times and you have yet to respond other than copy and paste other literature that doesn't answer anything. Is this just trolling or do you have a point?

  YES SHE DID.

On the other hand, a coup d'etat is an overthrow of a government, usually violently and suddenly by a small group of people.    In the case of Hawaii it was not a violent overthrow and the queen simply stepped down.    And I still have no idea what it has to do with Russia and Ukraine. 

  It is a type of French chicken soup.

Coming to a town near you....................... 

I just can't figure the point of the thread.   The USA is not perfect, never has been perfect, was never claimed to be perfect nor will it ever be.    It is not okay for Russia to invade Ukraine and killed hundreds or thousands people because the USA orchestrated a bloodless coup in Hawaii in the late 1800's (later becoming a state by a more than 90% vote of the people).    It is not hypocritical to say that the Russian invasion is wrong because of what happened more than a 100 years ago. That would be like me saying that murder is wrong and a person pointing out that one of my ancestors committed murder 100 years ago so I am a hypocrite for saying that it is wrong......... "You can't criticize murder, your great great uncle killed someone 120 years ago".    Is there a point to the USA asking the queen of Hawaii to step down (and she complied) many generations ago and the Russian invasion of Ukraine? 

  In my entire like I have heard not a single person say that we were a perfect nation or even close to it.   What are you talking about or is this another straw man argument? 

The funeral is over, the riots and protests have stopped and now we anxiously await the outcome of state and federal investigations.    What else do you want at this moment in time?

....... but Hormel can still stay solvent by selling Spam there. 

  No. Let's give Hawaii back and strip the US Senate of two Democrat votes and the House of two Democrat votes.    We can still vacation there as they will need the money after they are stripped of US welfare. 

    That is because you are privileged.  :rolleyes:   :D

  I'll have to double up with you. I have no clue either.    We also took what ended up being most of the western US from Mexico, the country in general from the Indians, Puerto Rico from Spain, Guam from the Japanese and so on. 

  Okay, by an act of Congress, signed by President McKinley. 

Denzel Washington made a similar statement after he had won the Oscar for Training Day.    I can't find a video of it but it was backstage after the event. Some doofus reporter asked Washington behind the stage something like, "When will it become normal that we don't report that a black man won the Oscar".   Washington's response was awesome. He looked at the reporter and made a statement that was similar to, "What a great opportunity you have to not mention my race in your article and just say that I won the Oscar".    Obviously the words varied from what I wrote but not by much. The idiot reporter asked a stupid question and he was shut up by Washington' statement that the reporter had a great chance to simply not mention race in his article. Of course that didn't happen but I love the sentiment. 

  By an act of Congress, signed by President Eisenhower.