Congressman Jefferson Indicted on Bribery Charges

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Jason Amazing how his district re-elected him after the FBI discovered the $90,000 in his Capitol Hill freezer. Sad, really.

Agreed. Speaks to my earlier point. We are getting the representation we deserve, because we keep putting them there. (we used as a general notion of American society as a whole. This usage not intended to identify an poster on this, or any other thread)

[bishop]

Quote by: rcne And as for the other investigations mentioned by Bishop - bring them all to trial. Nancy's claim to end the corruption starts now. We shall see.

i wonder how many people believed pelosi when she babbled that particular lie..

but, alas... like i said, people have this never ending appetite for tasty lies served up by their favorite politician. i don't care which side of the establishment you swing on, they're all proven liars.

not that this could ever happen, but to have a truly independent group of auditors investigate the dealings of politicians would undoubtedly unearth loads of scandals. the lobbyists aren't spending hundreds of billions of dollars for nothing..

[The Decider]

Quote by: Apeman81 Just remember, kool-aid is best sipped slowly.

Is that how Republicans drink kool-aid these days? :)

Quote by: Apeman81 Since you want to make this a party thing

You mentioned "Nancy and crew," Mr. "Non Partisan."

The wheels are turning against Mr. Jefferson. I think Louisiana can find a suitable replacement, though perhaps not suitable to Apeman. Alas, not all will feel satisfied. The Republic will survive the hit.

Indicted lawmaker temporarily leaving panel - CNN.com

[Osborn F Enready]

Public financing of political campaigns would almost entirely end the corruption, IF, the election was funded only by taxation, NOT by donation.

The government has the RIGHT to tax for representation, and that is the issue with many Americans, we ARE NOT being represented, so we resent a large portion of the taxation, most of which is incurred by people we don't necessarily trust, NOR share the opinions of.

Taxation for public financing of elections would be one of the ONLY Constitutionally valid forms of taxation in my opinion, by the federal government.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Osborn, I don't want my tax dollars going to pay for the campaign of someone I disagree with, and conversly, my right to spend my money on the campaign of my choice, is me using my money to express myself.


You are advocating the theft of my money, through taxes, and the denial of my right to free speech.

[Osborn F Enready]

Vic said: Osborn, I don't want my tax dollars going to pay for the campaign of someone I disagree with, and conversly, my right to spend my money on the campaign of my choice, is me using my money to express myself.

ROFLMAO....

Your tax dollars are getting blown on so many things you don't agree with now, how can you even SAY that?!? Are you telling me you think the public should have oversight of its tax dollars? If so, LETS GET THAT, by RETAKING the political elections system from the corporate sponsors who currently OWN AND OPERATE it lock stock and barrel.

How can you do that without public tax financed campaigns and elections Vic? :rolleyes:

Vic said: You are advocating the theft of my money, through taxes, and the denial of my right to free speech.

Explain how Vic, in other words, BACK THAT UP.

Corporate donations and contributions to political campaigns have LONG AGO robbed you of your right to free speech in elections, and have already been writing, lobbying, and passing laws to extort your tax dollars from you.....

God forbid the PEOPLE do it to REGAIN control, as opposed to burying our head in the sand and hoping it changes......

[Mr.Vicchio]

It's my right to donate to the political party of my choice. And you want to deny me that.

If it's the corporate issue, why not just ban corperations from making my political donations of any sort?

[Osborn F Enready]

Vic said: It's my right to donate to the political party of my choice. And you want to deny me that.

Show me that right Vic, or post a link to it please?

We have a right to elect representatives to fill the seats of our republican government, and we have a right to support whom we choose by vote....why do you think we have a right to "donate" to whom we wish other than time and votes?

Vic said: If it's the corporate issue, why not just ban corperations from making my political donations of any sort?

I have no problem with that method of attack, IF it can be clearly within public oversight and swiftly and clearly enforced by the people.

How could that happen Vic?

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Show me that right Vic, or post a link to it please?

Since when did the rights of the people have to be enumerated on paper?

The 10th amendment is clear enough. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The Government does not give us our rights, it only serves to limit them. After all, is that not the essence of being governed?

[Osborn F Enready]

Apeman said: Since when did the rights of the people have to be enumerated on paper?

I am not saying they HAVE TO, I am asking where Vic gets the notion that we have a right to financially support our chosen canidates and that that financial support should be the sole, or primary means of representation.

I get the impression he is saying "the market" should determine the canidate, and I don't agree with that.

Apeman said: The 10th amendment is clear enough. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

No argument here Ape, I know the Bill of Rights and the Constitution quite intimately.

Ape said: The Government does not give us our rights, it only serves to limit them. After all, is that not the essence of being governed?

With that, I totally disagree.

The government draws its power from SANCTION and CONSCENT of the people, and its JOB is to ENFORCE our rights in law, as well as protect them FROM legal abridgement.

We are OUR OWN governors, which is why this nation was a government of the people, by the people, for the people, and why we reserve the right of revolt should our government veer from that role.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights take the place, and eradicate the need for a "seated King" or "Governor", since we are self-governed.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Freedom of Speech Osborne. Ever heard of it? Through my political donation, I am making a statement.

I am speaking.

You want to deny me my rights and steal my money.

[Osborn F Enready]

Vic said: Freedom of Speech Osborne. Ever heard of it?

Indeed, I am quite the advocate of free speech, which is why I find your argument so amusing.

Vic said: Through my political donation, I am making a statement.

That statement is being skewed, and molested by the system as it is currently, and the system of which you are championing is flawed in the sense that it puts the "advantage" of voting power to those who have the most money to donate to politics, which is HOW WE GOT HERE to this state of political corruption.

The government has a RIGHT to tax for representation, and by taxing, it levels the playing field and isolates any effect of wealth influencing politics.

Do you disagree?

Vic said: I am speaking.

You have the right to speak, to donate time and labor of your own to the campaign you support.

Do you think rich people have a right to dominate politics?
Do you deny that private donations skew the political voice of the people?

Vic said: You want to deny me my rights and steal my money.

How Vic?

I am one of the biggest anti-tax advocates on this site, and their are probably hundreds of posts, if not thousands of posts BY ME to prove that statement.

The fact is, THE GOVERNMENT has the RIGHT to tax for representation, whereas most of the other existing taxes are unconstitutional, deny apportionment, deny states rights, etc.

I find it outright funny that you take offense to being taxed for equal right to representation, while ignoring or staying silent over the thousands of other unconstitutional taxes ALREADY levied against you for years, in fact, your entire life.

Are you telling me that the government has no right to tax you for representation in politics?

Do you think I would draw comfort from the fact that my tax donation would be equally split between my chosen canidate and my ideological enemy canidates, such as communist or socialist postured canidates?
I wouldn't, but the fact is, if MONEY wasn't the issue, DEBATE and FACTS would be the deciding issue, and that is a comfort so far above the scham we have now, I can't think of a better idea.....

Can you?

[Mr.Vicchio]

You are willing to deny me my right to spend my money to make a political statement in favor of of a system where the governemnt runs the system.

I am find it more amusing that while you scream and yell about the abuses of political parties, you are all for DENIAL OF PERSONAL RIGHTS when you feel it's okay.

Hypocrite.

[Osborn F Enready]

Vic said: You are willing to deny me my right to spend my money to make a political statement in favor of of a system where the governemnt runs the system. I am find it more amusing that while you scream and yell about the abuses of political parties, you are all for DENIAL OF PERSONAL RIGHTS when you feel it's okay. Hypocrite.

ROFLMAO.....

You haven't answered any of my questions, or shown clearly how I am stealing your money or denying your rights......

typical argument for you Vic.....grain of salt.

[Mr.Vicchio]

If I cannot donate to a political party, you have denied my 1st amendment rights.

Political speech The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and related laws restricted the monetary contributions that may be made to political campaigns and expenditure by candidates. The Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of the Act in Buckley v. Valeo, decided in 1976. The Court affirmed some parts of the Act and rejected others. The Court concluded that limits on campaign contributions "serve[d] the basic governmental interest in safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process without directly impinging upon the rights of individual citizens and candidates to engage in political debate and discussion." At the same time, the Court overturned the expenditure limits, which it found imposed "substantial restraints on the quantity of political speech."

First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It helps to know the Constitution and how it's applied, political donations are a form of speech.

[Osborn F Enready]

Vic, that ruling was in 1971, FAR after the courts had been violated by political appointment, and far after the system of politics was eroded by the very abuse of money dominating the politics of this nation for over one hundred years.

It is easy to SITE a court case as your argument, it is another thing entirely to use your own words to justify your argument, and I don't think you can.

You are basicly saying "its a law", so I should respect that.

We both know that the court can, and HAS made findings and set precedents that can and will be reversed, as much as bad laws can be made and repealed or nullified by the jury for a particular case.

I would like to see YOU answer my questions that were directed at YOU, to justify your position.

[bishop]

Quote by: Apeman81 The 10th amendment is clear enough. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

and look how closely republicans and democrats have adhered to the 10th amendment... :rolleyes:

[Mr.Vicchio]

Quote by: bishop and look how closely republicans and democrats have adhered to the 10th amendment... :rolleyes:

Whose fault is that Bish?

[Mr.Vicchio]

Osborn, I was trying to make a point about money/contributions are a form of political speech which you desire to take away from me.

I'm about the constitution and our rights, obviously you are not.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready The government draws its power from SANCTION and CONSCENT of the people, and its JOB is to ENFORCE our rights in law, as well as protect them FROM legal abridgement. We are OUR OWN governors, which is why this nation was a government of the people, by the people, for the people, and why we reserve the right of revolt should our government veer from that role. The Constitution and Bill of Rights take the place, and eradicate the need for a "seated King" or "Governor", since we are self-governed.

Not really a disagreement. Rather a difference in terminology.

While we the people are the ones that give the government the power to act on our behalf in respect to our rights, the purpose behind ceding them that power is to limit certain behaviors that are ours to give them, thus avoiding anarchy.

When we allow them enactment of a law to prohibit driving while intoxicated, we are ceding our ability to drive while intoxicated, giving the state the power to take measures to punish such behavior.

When we elect a representative to vote an issue at the state or federal level, we have ceded our right to a direct vote, in order to avoid the negative affects of a pure, majority vote democracy.

We are governed, albeit, at least theoretically, voluntarily. As such, no one man can decide that the government does not apply to him.