- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
2
Posted on 4/17/14 at 1:03 pm to Srbtiger06
quote:
Such a noble creature.
More like a freak creature of nature.
Posted on 4/17/14 at 1:04 pm to Homesick Tiger
Famous quotes about the platypus:
“The platypus... I don't know WHAT the frick I was on when I made that...”
~ God on Platypuses
“frick this, now I'm Atheist!”
~ The Pope on his first sight of a Platypus
“"They don't do much."”
~ Phineas Flynn on Platypuses
“The platypus... I don't know WHAT the frick I was on when I made that...”
~ God on Platypuses
“frick this, now I'm Atheist!”
~ The Pope on his first sight of a Platypus
“"They don't do much."”
~ Phineas Flynn on Platypuses
Posted on 4/17/14 at 1:08 pm to fleaux
The platypus is a member of the monotremata order. Another notable member of the order is the Echidna.
This post was edited on 4/17/14 at 1:13 pm
Posted on 4/17/14 at 1:11 pm to Srbtiger06
ETA: It bugs me this doesn't say "platypi."
This post was edited on 4/17/14 at 1:12 pm
Posted on 4/17/14 at 1:28 pm to imjustafatkid
Dawwwww 
Posted on 4/17/14 at 1:39 pm to Rex
quote:
Now, a political candidate can and does use contributions on many more things than just TV commercials and ads. He can pay headquarters light bills, the salaries of campaign aides, or plane tickets to and from various locations, etc.
I believe that any interest earned on campaign funds goes directly to the candidate. He would have to declare it as income, but it's still his money to spend at his own discretion.
Posted on 4/17/14 at 1:50 pm to imjustafatkid
Did you know that the platypus is one of the few mammals to produce venom?
Males have a pair of spurs on their hind limbs that deliver venom during mating season.
And is it really platypusses?
Males have a pair of spurs on their hind limbs that deliver venom during mating season.
And is it really platypusses?
Posted on 4/17/14 at 1:52 pm to Srbtiger06
There you are Perry.
Posted on 4/17/14 at 3:12 pm to Rex
Let me give you an illustration Mr. Bias Bot.yea BOT.
Why is it ok for newspappers to persuade citizens when they are 97 percent liberal, but you think ordinary citizens shouldn't have the same power.
When you and your ilk agree to a law that forbids newspapers and the liberal media from using all their power to get liberals elected, then and only then might I agree with some kind of election reform.
But you love the media bias, you don't think that giving Democrats free media plugs is wrong or that their attacking republicans continually is wrong. But you want to keep citizens from spending money that points out the truths they believe in.
So if the media rails against any position, be it coal, oil etc. etc. why shouldn't big business bw allowed to counter that spending?
What your ignorant azz should be afraid if is an unjust media that wields to much power, instead of tax payers who want to protect their interest.
Why is it ok for newspappers to persuade citizens when they are 97 percent liberal, but you think ordinary citizens shouldn't have the same power.
When you and your ilk agree to a law that forbids newspapers and the liberal media from using all their power to get liberals elected, then and only then might I agree with some kind of election reform.
But you love the media bias, you don't think that giving Democrats free media plugs is wrong or that their attacking republicans continually is wrong. But you want to keep citizens from spending money that points out the truths they believe in.
So if the media rails against any position, be it coal, oil etc. etc. why shouldn't big business bw allowed to counter that spending?
What your ignorant azz should be afraid if is an unjust media that wields to much power, instead of tax payers who want to protect their interest.
Posted on 4/18/14 at 3:53 pm to Rex
If giving money equals free speech, then, the obvious logical corollary is that bribery should be legal, unless we wish to punish speech.
The Citizens United ruling is SOMEWHAT defensible, even if incorrect. It defines spending FOR speech as speech, quite a stretch but there's at least a bit of connection there.
The McCutcheon decision, however, is a perversion. It defines spending as speech, period, and those are obviously only the same in the bizarro world of political contortionists like Antonin Scalia.
And at what price to his own integrity does Antonin Scalia make such an equation? The Court's decision is irrational and hypocritical. The logical consequence of the McCutcheon decision would be an end to all anti-bribery laws. But Scalia and company, themselves, admit the corruptive influence of money when within their ruling they accepted without question the present law to limit how much one person can give to one candidate.
What they then did was an end run around a corruption prohibition they just accepted: they allowed one man to give to as many political organizations as he wishes, knowing full well that those PAC's might just turn around and give it to all one man, anyway.
The Citizens United ruling is SOMEWHAT defensible, even if incorrect. It defines spending FOR speech as speech, quite a stretch but there's at least a bit of connection there.
The McCutcheon decision, however, is a perversion. It defines spending as speech, period, and those are obviously only the same in the bizarro world of political contortionists like Antonin Scalia.
And at what price to his own integrity does Antonin Scalia make such an equation? The Court's decision is irrational and hypocritical. The logical consequence of the McCutcheon decision would be an end to all anti-bribery laws. But Scalia and company, themselves, admit the corruptive influence of money when within their ruling they accepted without question the present law to limit how much one person can give to one candidate.
What they then did was an end run around a corruption prohibition they just accepted: they allowed one man to give to as many political organizations as he wishes, knowing full well that those PAC's might just turn around and give it to all one man, anyway.
This post was edited on 4/18/14 at 4:02 pm
Posted on 4/18/14 at 4:46 pm to Rex
By far and away my favorite Easter candy are the Reese's peanut butter eggs.
My sister likes Peeps. I think they are gross. To each their own.
Cadburys eggs... Used to be great when they used real sugar. Now not so much. The Brit ones still have sugar. And are still good.
In fact, most of the candy you get in Europe has better quality chocolate. A genuine British KitKat is the bomb.
A Brit co-worker always brings back a ton of British candy for the office.
One quick more about Reeces... Their advertising is false. Straight peanut butter and chocolate don't taste as good as a Reece's. Sugar is the difference!
More later...
My sister likes Peeps. I think they are gross. To each their own.
Cadburys eggs... Used to be great when they used real sugar. Now not so much. The Brit ones still have sugar. And are still good.
In fact, most of the candy you get in Europe has better quality chocolate. A genuine British KitKat is the bomb.
A Brit co-worker always brings back a ton of British candy for the office.
One quick more about Reeces... Their advertising is false. Straight peanut butter and chocolate don't taste as good as a Reece's. Sugar is the difference!
More later...
Posted on 4/18/14 at 4:48 pm to Rex
quote:Um. Wow, you're a legal genius I tell ya!!!
If giving money equals free speech, then, the obvious logical corollary is that bribery should be legal, unless we wish to punish speech.
If I give you money tomorrow because I approve of what you fight for, that's not bribery.
If, on the other hand, I ask you to vote a certain way in return for money, that would be bribery.
Not, to be certain, the latter happens. But, they are quite obviously two different things and thing 1 being legal doesn't mean thing 2 has to be.
Posted on 4/18/14 at 4:52 pm to Rex
quote:
And at what price to his own integrity does Antonin Scalia make such an equation? The Court's decision is irrational and hypocritical. The logical consequence of the McCutcheon decision would be an end to all anti-bribery laws. But Scalia and company, themselves, admit the corruptive influence of money when within their ruling they accepted without question the present law to limit how much one person can give to one candidate.
From page 2 of Chief Justice Roberts' decision
quote:
The statute at issue in this case imposes two types of limits on campaign contributions. The first, called base limits, restricts how much money a donor may contribute to a particular candidate or committee. 2 U. S. C. §441a(a)(1). The second, called aggregate limits, restricts
how much money a donor may contribute in total to all candidates or committees. §441a(a)(3). This case does not involve any challenge to the base
limits, which we have previously upheld as serving the permissible objective of combatting corruption.
Posted on 4/18/14 at 4:58 pm to MFn GIMP
That's what I said.
Posted on 4/18/14 at 5:07 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
If I give you money tomorrow because I approve of what you fight for, that's not bribery.
That's correct.
quote:
If, on the other hand, I ask you to vote a certain way in return for money, that would be bribery.
That's also correct, but not under McCutcheon decision logic, which is the problem.
Because McCutcheon unequivocably (albeit not explicity) defines giving money as speech then we can logically rephrase your scenario thusly:
"If, on the other hand, I ask you to vote a certain way in return for urging you to vote a certain way, that would be bribery."
I have replaced your "money" with the speech it's supposed to represent according to the McCutcheon decision, and, as you can see, it leads to a logical absurdity. No, it WOULDN'T be bribery. The McCutcheon decision leads to absurdities.
Posted on 4/18/14 at 5:14 pm to Rex
quote:I think this is chicken littleish.
I have replaced your "money" with the speech it's supposed to represent according to the McCutcheon decision, and, as you can see, it leads to a logical absurdity. No, it WOULDN'T be bribery. The McCutcheon decision leads to absurdities.
I see no difficult whatsoever in differentiating between the two. And, I doubt courts will either.
But of course, that's not the real problem in my view. The real problem is it is pretty much impossible to know when actual bribery takes place unless you sting someone or somehow catch them red handed.
I've no doubt that bribery happens BUT, the fact that Person A may be prone to bribe a congressman and that congressman is a willing bribery participant should have zero effect upon Person B who simply wants to put his money behind people who he already agrees with.
Moreover, I would assert that exceedingly few people are actually even pissed about the money exchange and vote buying. They're pissed that they can't do ALL of the vote buying. I mean that for both sides. Admit it. If all the vote buying was successfully implementing all of the policies Rex likes, you'd barely utter a word about it.
Posted on 4/18/14 at 5:26 pm to ShortyRob
quote:This is why character does in fact matter.
that congressman is a willing bribery participant
For someone that has enough trust in government to turn over something as Important as healthcare; Rex seems to have little faith in the representatives that run that government.
He's booming himself.
Now back to more important things... Easter dinner... Ham or pork loin? That is the question. I have access to both. What say Ye?
Posted on 4/18/14 at 5:27 pm to Taxing Authority
Why not both?
Posted on 4/18/14 at 5:34 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
This is why character does in fact matter.
Meh.
I mean, it does. But, the reality is, we really have pretty much no way of knowing if public personalities are of high character. We don't know any of them. That's why I don't get very animated when some guy screws around. Sure, I could vote him out, but hell, the guy who replaces him could be 10x worse and I'd have no way of knowing.
I vote based on precisely two things.
1)What they say they stand for
AND
2)How their voting pattern comports with #1.
To me, voting based on anything else is voting out of emotion because again, we really don't know shite about them.
And, if you think about it, from the voter's perspective, whether he voted the way YOU want him to due to his actual beliefs or due to bribery is wholly irrelevant.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News