https://scontent.fmem1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/61738724_10219366394728969_3065137749053931520_n.j pg?_nc_cat=111&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=QKwP9sRhrmMAX8vZBO4&_nc_ht=scontent.fmem1-2.fna&oh=c9d66c067515d25d2ef81ebf2c114114&oe=60CCD2DA

The Wisdom of Justice Scalia Hit the nail (bent nail) on the head.

What do you think of those who Set up a "Go fund me" page? What is that all about??? Might as well set up a "go piss your money down the turlet" page!

Why would I want to give a dime to a delivery driver who felt slighted when picking up a $12 tip?
Or a Barista who had to deal with a Karen???

I don't have a problem with GoFundMe. At least it's voluntary. I've seen some that were legit.

I usually tip pretty well. My wife and I spent most of our years on a tight budget trying to raise two kids. I always told the Lord I would tip more generously when I was able to. We're able now, so I don't mind it.

Can you believe there was a time when tipping was said to be un-American?

I always tip, unless they insult me. It really peeves me when a Barista, waiter, etc. asks me If I would like my change back Grrrr!! My niece set up a GoFundMe, she wanted donations to divorce her Boyfriend. I felt Obligated being that she gave me one of her Kidneys. Divorce, meaning; get him out of the kids' (along with her) life. Something about "GoFundMe" seems a bit crass. Have a death in the Family, you're on it...GoFundMe!

My niece set up a GoFundMe, she wanted donations to divorce her Boyfriend.I must admit I've never heard of that one before. I see your point.

Scalia: Christianity best for capitalism - Strange Bedfellows — Politics News (seattlepi.com) (https://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2013/09/10/christianity-best-for-capitalism-scalia/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CThe%20governmentalization%20of%2 0charity%20affects%20not%20just%20the,produced%20d onors%20without%20love%20and%20recipients%20withou t%20gratitude.)


“The transformation of charity into legal entitlement has produced donors without love and recipients without gratitude. It’s not my place or my purpose to criticize these developments, only to observe that they do not suggest the expanding role of government is good for Christianity.”

Scalia: Christianity best for capitalism - Strange Bedfellows — Politics News (seattlepi.com) (https://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2013/09/10/christianity-best-for-capitalism-scalia/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CThe%20governmentalization%20of%2 0charity%20affects%20not%20just%20the,produced%20d onors%20without%20love%20and%20recipients%20withou t%20gratitude.)

That is an excellent article, tal, and shows the real Scalia. His friendship with RBG has been what most people remember about Scalia. But the Scalia reality was the far-right decisions he burdened the country with - not least Citizens United. His Catholicism was of the 16th century Council of Trent variety, not Vatican II - another example of his backward-looking way of thinking.

Kennedy ,the so called swing vote ,authored the Citizen's United Majority opinion. The opinion states that
restricting unions, corporations, and profitable organizations from independent political spending and prohibiting the broadcasting of political media funded by them within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election violate the First Amendment's protections of freedom of speech.


"If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."


The left demonizes the decision without recognizing that without public union funding during campaigns ;and many corporate sponsorships in the high tech industries and the media conglomerates ,their political fortunes would've been toast . Corporate and individual contributions by people like Bloomberg ,Soros , Steyer ,Zuckerberg Cuban ,Bezos (and his media influence) have been vital in the progressive infection .

The left demonizes the decision without recognizing that without public union funding during campaigns ;and many corporate sponsorships in the high tech industries and the media conglomerates ,their political fortunes would've been toast .The left tends to be in favor of whatever favors the left.

Kennedy ,the so called swing vote ,authored the Citizen's United Majority opinion.

Regardless of author, it's bad policy.



The left demonizes the decision without recognizing that without public union funding during campaigns ;and many corporate sponsorships in the high tech industries and the media conglomerates ,their political fortunes would've been toast . Corporate and individual contributions by people like Bloomberg ,Soros , Steyer ,Zuckerberg Cuban ,Bezos (and his media influence) have been vital in the progressive infection .


If it's so great for the left, why do you support it?

because I am a constitutional rights type of person. Once the left stopped pouting and holding their breath ,they figured out how to make it work for them . Now 'Citzen's United ' is just a talking point they use in fund raising .

because I am a constitutional rights type of person.

What is constitutional about allowing unlimited funds for political campaign purposes? Doesn't that favor rich Republicans and penalize Democrats?

or the other way around, it seems the really rich side with the demonrats

What is constitutional about allowing unlimited funds for political campaign purposes? Doesn't that favor rich Republicans and penalize Democrats? Of course not .I just gave you a list of Democrat donors . The constitutional issue is the 1st amendment freedom of speech , You know who else agrees with the decision ? The ACLU

Doesn't that favor rich Republicans and penalize Democrats?Even if that was true, it would make no difference. The SC is not bound to make decisions that favor the dems. I'm concerned about the role of big money in politics, but I think impinging on free speech is not the solution.

Campaign finance reform is an incumbent protection program. Democrats passed campaign-finance-reform acts were passed in 1939, 1943, 1947, and 1967.Republicans in 1883, 1907, 1910, 1911, 1925, 1971, 1974, and 2002. Nothing changed since George Washington was accused of giving a quart and a half of booze to every voter in Virginia when he ran for the Virginia House of Burgesses.

It's worth looking into a system where the campaign monies are collected and distributed by an entity according to agreed-upon rules. Each candidate would get an equal amount of money to spend as he/she thought best. Candidates to be selected at party primaries. And/or by a number of people signing a petition. Or other ways to be considered. Pacs would be limited.

Other ideas to be submitted/offered.

Other ideas to be submitted/offered.Tell the political class to mind it's own business. If any person wants to pay for a radio ad advocating in favor of a candidate for office, then that is his/her free speech right. Leave them alone. When the political class can set the rules, the rules will always be set to favor them.

The media has become the greatest enemy of honest elections. The widespread dissemination of the fake news story about tear gas and Lafayette Square is a perfect example. The squashing of the story of Hunter Biden's hard drive is yet another.

you get so caught up in side issues when the real issue is political deadlock. You experienced this for two of the last four years, so tempers run hot as nothing gets done while your politicians engage in a witch hunt and lynch mob mentality. when this ends in "rebellion" you wonder why

the real issue is political deadlock.Far from true.

"nothing gets done"??? I wish.

Yes I'm sure that now a lot of things will get done you didn't wish for, but wishing doesn't get it done

The dufus had 4 years to lie cheat and steal and screw up the world, so expect more than 150 days to be enough to straighten things out. Heck Clete, the loons are still kicking and screaming making it kind of hard to pull their big heads from his fat a$$.

I don't understand the affection for yesterday's man, he is like Caesar, he came, he saw, he conquered, he departed

In a phone call, Trump admitted his 2020 presidential election defeat during an interview with Sean Hannity (https://www.newsweek.com/topic/sean-hannity) on Wednesday [June 16, 2021], telling the Fox News (https://www.newsweek.com/topic/fox-news) host: "We didn't win."

The former president conducted a wide-ranging interview with Hannity and conceded to having lost to President Joe Biden (https://www.newsweek.com/topic/joe-biden)—despite having long contested the result.

"We were supposed to win easily, 64 million votes," Trump said in the interview.

"We got 75 million votes, and we didn't win, but let's see what happens on that."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trump-says-we-didnt-win-in-2020-but-lets-see-what-happens/ar-AAL8qxh?ocid=uxbndlbing

Yes there we a lot more votes either way, many millions, so that may mean a more interested electorate, or it may mean the electorate had had enough of the orange diatribe

Yes there we a lot more votes either way, many millions, so that may mean a more interested electorate, or it may mean the electorate had had enough of the orange diatribe

Probably both things are true, and what was hidden is coming to light now.

It is all old news tal, bigger issues are emerging

True that Trump invigorated the electorate. Both sides. Got him 74 million votes, but not nearly enough to overcome the 81 million voters who recognized him for what he is - an ignorant proto-Fascist without a platform except for stroking his damaged ego.