Alito on Recording

[Lazaran]

I'm saying they're all corrupt af at this point. Left and right.

So I got your point.



And I’m calling bullshit.

 

[Lady2020]

But are they really?

I think you'd have a very difficult time proving that statement.

They're there to do a job. Not make money off it in the process.

 

[Lady2020]

So I got your point.



And I’m calling bullshit.

That's fine.

 

[adrina]

They're there to do a job. Not make money off it in the process.

That's not what I asked. Are they really both corrupt af? Prove it.

 

[Lady2020]

That's not what I asked. Are they really both corrupt af? Prove it.

I'm saying they are all there to do the job they were appointed to. If you can't accept that, that's on you.

 

[adrina]

I'm saying they are all there to do the job they were appointed to. If you can't accept that, that's on you.

That's a deflection. Yes we have elected officials and appointed officials to do their jobs. Your contention is that they are all corrupt and that they are all corrupt equally. Simply saying that they are there to do a job is not putting forth proof of your contention.

If we want to dive into this then let's do it. For Congress we have 535 members. Have all profited off of their positions? How much or how little has each profited? How many have brought forth legislation? How much of that legislation has passed? Which members have brought forth the most meaningful legislation? Which members voted for it? Which members and how many missed the most votes? Which offices have the highest expenditures? Which office have the lowest production?

Same type of questions for the judicial branch

What you have done is made a blanket statement without really digging into any of the actual facts, depth and breadth of the situation. We live in a capitalist society and so it is easy for you to see the effects of corporate greed and use it to feed your dissatisfaction with the government. Frankly that is intellectually lazy and dishonest.

Essentially you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Lady2020]

That's a deflection. Yes we have elected officials and appointed officials to do their jobs. Your contention is that they are all corrupt and that they are all corrupt equally. Simply saying that they are there to do a job is not putting forth proof of your contention.

If we want to dive into this then let's do it. For Congress we have 535 members. Have all profited off of their positions? How much or how little has each profited? How many have brought forth legislation? How much of that legislation has passed? Which members have brought forth the most meaningful legislation? Which members voted for it? Which members and how many missed the most votes? Which offices have the highest expenditures? Which office have the lowest production?

Same type of questions for the judicial branch

What you have done is made a blanket statement without really digging into any of the actual facts, depth and breadth of the situation. We live in a capitalist society and so it is easy for you to see the effects of corporate greed and use it to feed your dissatisfaction with the government. Frankly that is intellectually lazy and dishonest.

Essentially you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Give it a rest. I'm not here to prove one fucking thing. You posted a thread, I responded.

 

[RoryN]

Give it a rest. I'm not here to prove one fucking thing. You posted a thread, I responded.

So, it's her thread; you came into it and made a statement you're unwilling to back up, yet she's the one who needs to "give it a rest"?

LOL - who the fuck do you think you are?

 

[Lady2020]

So, it's her thread; you came into it and made a statement you're unwilling to back up, yet she's the one who needs to "give it a rest"?

LOL - who the fuck do you think you are?

A Litster.

 

[RoryN]

A Litster.

Ah, I misjudged you. I thought you were bringing some hubris and undue self-importance into this thread with your earlier responses. But now I don't think you are - you're just an idiot.

As they say, once a Playgrounder...

 

[Lady2020]

Ah, I misjudged you. I thought you were bringing some hubris and undue self-importance into this thread with your earlier responses. But now I don't think you are - you're just an idiot.

As they say, once a Playgrounder...

Oh, fuck off. You self-important gb & political thread ops ask questions and then you can't handle opinions that don't match yours 100%.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Ah, I misjudged you. I thought you were bringing some hubris and undue self-importance into this thread with your earlier responses. But now I don't think you are - you're just an idiot.

As they say, once a Playgrounder...

Is school out early this year? The influx is alarming.

 

[SmokingFap]

The Constitution is NOT a living document. If you want to change it the instructions are contained in Article V. I hope that fact is sinking because if it isn't there will be blood shed.................again.

Oh, please. The only blood you'd shed is menstrual fluid.

 

[RoryN]

Oh, fuck off. You self-important gb & political thread ops ask questions and then you can't handle opinions that don't match yours 100%.

Give it a rest. I'm not here to prove one thing. You posted a post, I responded.

 

[jaF0]

I think most people at this point would think the Supreme Court is corrupt af. You think a $M book deal looks good? That's on the liberal side. And I'm a lib.

No, I don't. I think it's very wrong and rasies questions about her ethics.



But as I said on another thread about the topic:

That isn't really acceptable to conceal your identity and purpose, then ask leading questions trying to elicit a response while 'secretly' recording a government official in hopes of getting something harmful. She may have opened herself up to criminal charges.

We have to be better than they are and not stoop to their level.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Oh, fuck off. You self-important gb & political thread ops ask questions and then you can't handle opinions that don't match yours 100%.

Your opinion is welcome and idiotic. That should clear things up.

 

[Lady2020]

Your opinion is welcome and idiotic. That should clear things up.

It certainly does. And proves what I stated. Not only that, it shows that some people are on Lit solely to argue politics when there's a big world here to pic a sex partner when loneliness sets in.

 

[RoryN]

"Tee hee! Sex games and sexy talk...wait, is no one taking me seriously? [Post on PB] I'm more than just sex! Wait...present evidence? Support my position? Um...tee hee! Sex games and sexy talk!" #Playgrounders

 

[DeluxAuto]

It certainly does. And proves what I stated. Not only that, it shows that some people are on Lit solely to argue politics when there's a big world here to pic a sex partner when loneliness sets in.

See, the thing is that the discussion is about a compromised SCOTUS justice and must be delt with in facts only so you're opinion means fuck all.

Oh, and some of us aren't desperate enough to pick a secks partner from here.

lol @ "there's a big world here."

 

[adrina]

Give it a rest. I'm not here to prove one fucking thing. You posted a thread, I responded.

And apparently can't handle any response to your response. You are full of shit.

 

[jaF0]

I think most people at this point would think the Supreme Court is corrupt af. You think a $M book deal looks good? That's on the liberal side. And I'm a lib.

I'm saying they're all corrupt af at this point. Left and right.

Jackson is proving to be so. Not sure about Soto and the others.

Justice income should be limited to salary only and maybe some benign investments. I'm not in favor of being paid for things like speaking engagements. You want to be an author? Resign from the bench.

They should be under the most strict ethics policy (and scrutiny) of anyone in Government.

 

[adrina]

And term limits. A ten year term would allow them time to be justice and time to make their money afterwards.

 

[jaF0]

Let's add another.

No President should ever be able to nominate/appoint more than one Justice. Term limits would go a long ways towards that. Matching Justices to the number of Circuits would help ensure the bench would not fall short if one or more dies, resigns or term limits out during a period where a President has already named one.

 

[AndersonsBiographer]

The Constitution is NOT a living document. If you want to change it the instructions are contained in Article V. I hope that fact is sinking because if it isn't there will be blood shed.................again.

Looking forward to it.

 

[AndersonsBiographer]

And term limits. A ten year term would allow them time to be justice and time to make their money afterwards.

Or, y'know, we could just ban anyone who is openly religious or otherwise mentally ill from ever holding public office.

Leftism will really never be serious as a political philosophy until they realize that Lenin was as right about the church as he was about the monarchy.