POLITICAL pictures - Funny (unlikely), Sad (more likely) Infuriating (most likely)

[Magyars]

Evansville IS on the map......!

Traffic Stop Reveals Unusual Concealed Carry — Ex-Convict Hides Handgun in His Butt | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft

A traffic stop on Monday led to a shocking discovery for Evansville police officers when they found a handgun concealed in a very unusual place – within the butt of an ex-convict.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

 

[Magyars]

 

[Magyars]

 

[mikek]

 

[Ingomike]

View attachment 315786

I call it free speech and association as in the constitution. It may not seem like it but this is an anti-freedom meme…

 

[KLB]

I call it free speech and association as in the constitution. It may not seem like it but this is an anti-freedom meme…

I think the problem is separating the speech from the money.

 

[Ingomike]

I think the problem is separating the speech from the money.

Already been decided, SCOTUS ruled money is speech. Many lobbyists represent many that join in association, use money to hire a speaker for the association, a speaker that addresses government. Not sure the big deal…

 

[jwamplerusa]

I call it free speech and association as in the constitution. It may not seem like it but this is an anti-freedom meme…

No, I would argue that it is not. In the actual context at issue, when lobbying is done by organizations and not citizens it is most definitely bribery and corruption.

Citizens have rights. Not organizations of any type whether they be a corporation, a non-profit, or any other non-real person. Somewhere along the way this nation's judiciary has went off the rails and conflated citizen with organization. If you cannot serve, nor vote, nor be individually responsible nor meet other tests of citizenship, you don't have rights in the context of the Bill of Rights and that includes the right of association. (i.e. between the organization and an elected servant of the people)

In a constitutional context, my position is that, I as an individual citizen have a first amendment right to associate, converse with, and direct money to candidates of my choice. That right however does not transfer to any organization I may belong to. The organization is a legal entity, it is not a real person and therefore is not a citizen.

That legal organizational entity, not a real person, may do many things on my behalf however; it should not be able to give money to politicians or speak to them on my behalf. The politician is a servant of the people, a servant elected by the constituents and responsible and accountable solely to those real persons.

As soon as it comes to direct interaction with an elected representative via speech, writing, or monetary support there is corruption of the relationship between the citizen and the elected representative of the government. There should be no interaction other than with the individual citizen.

The position that you appear to advocate is how we ended up with citizens united, a decision detrimental to both the Republic and the individual citizens of this nation.

 

[mikek]

 

[Chewie]

View attachment 315820

You must be doing well under the Build Back Better plan. You have a bigger tree and I don't have a Christmas present under my tree!

 

[spencer rifle]

No, I would argue that it is not. In the actual context at issue, when lobbying is done by organizations and not citizens it is most definitely bribery and corruption.

Citizens have rights. Not organizations of any type whether they be a corporation, a non-profit, or any other non-real person. Somewhere along the way this nation's judiciary has went off the rails and conflated citizen with organization. If you cannot serve, nor vote, nor be individually responsible nor meet other tests of citizenship, you don't have rights in the context of the Bill of Rights and that includes the right of association. (i.e. between the organization and an elected servant of the people)

In a constitutional context, my position is that, I as an individual citizen have a first amendment right to associate, converse with, and direct money to candidates of my choice. That right however does not transfer to any organization I may belong to. The organization is a legal entity, it is not a real person and therefore is not a citizen.

That legal organizational entity, not a real person, may do many things on my behalf however; it should not be able to give money to politicians or speak to them on my behalf. The politician is a servant of the people, a servant elected by the constituents and responsible and accountable solely to those real persons.

As soon as it comes to direct interaction with an elected representative via speech, writing, or monetary support there is corruption of the relationship between the citizen and the elected representative of the government. There should be no interaction other than with the individual citizen.

The position that you appear to advocate is how we ended up with citizens united, a decision detrimental to both the Republic and the individual citizens of this nation.

So individuals have rights, but they lose those rights when they choose to associate with other individuals?

 

[KLB]

Already been decided, SCOTUS ruled money is speech. Many lobbyists represent many that join in association, use money to hire a speaker for the association, a speaker that addresses government. Not sure the big deal…

Not sure why you would think I was talking about paying for lobbyists when referring to money. I was referring to all of the money that finds its way into politicians pockets.

 

[Ingomike]

No, I would argue that it is not. In the actual context at issue, when lobbying is done by organizations and not citizens it is most definitely bribery and corruption.

Wow! That the people can gather their resources together to redress their government overseeers is tantamount to “bribery and corruption” is unreal. What next, no one can organize a group to go to school board meetings?

Citizens have rights. Not organizations of any type whether they be a corporation, a non-profit, or any other non-real person. Somewhere along the way this nation's judiciary has went off the rails and conflated citizen with organization. If you cannot serve, nor vote, nor be individually responsible nor meet other tests of citizenship, you don't have rights in the context of the Bill of Rights and that includes the right of association. (i.e. between the organization and an elected servant of the people)

That horse left the barn long ago. Organizations are a group of citizens that do not lose their freedoms because they choose to associate together for bigger impact.

In a constitutional context, my position is that, I as an individual citizen have a first amendment right to associate, converse with, and direct money to candidates of my choice. That right however does not transfer to any organization I may belong to. The organization is a legal entity, it is not a real person and therefore is not a citizen.

Are you saying that as an individual I do not have the freedom to join my money with like minded folks to lobby and redress government? That would shut down all gun rights organizations.

That legal organizational entity, not a real person, may do many things on my behalf however; it should not be able to give money to politicians or speak to them on my behalf. The politician is a servant of the people, a servant elected by the constituents and responsible and accountable solely to those real persons.

As soon as it comes to direct interaction with an elected representative via speech, writing, or monetary support there is corruption of the relationship between the citizen and the elected representative of the government. There should be no interaction other than with the individual citizen.

So the NRA cannot lobby or campaign against a gun grabber?

The position that you appear to advocate is how we ended up with citizens united, a decision detrimental to both the Republic and the individual citizens of this nation.

This is just completely wrong. Citizens United was correctly decided. You believe that people opposed to a candidate cannot pool their resources to create a documentary showing other what a despicable candidate they really are?

The position you espouse here is the position of the totalitarian leftists.

 

[Ingomike]

Not sure why you would think I was talking about paying for lobbyists when referring to money. I was referring to all of the money that finds its way into politicians pockets.

That type of corruption is illegal, see Biden.

I think the problem is separating the speech from the money.

I thought you were talking about what was referenced in the post you quoted.

 

[KLB]

That type of corruption is illegal, see Biden.


I thought you were talking about what was referenced in the post you quoted.

Nah. While the reality of the CU decision isn't optimal, I do agree with it.

We all know there is a lot of money changing hands in Washington that skirts the line of legality. That doesn't even include all of the insider trading going on.

 

[Ingomike]

Nah. While the reality of the CU decision isn't optimal, I do agree with it.

We all know there is a lot of money changing hands in Washington that skirts the line of legality. That doesn't even include all of the insider trading going on.

Yes. What good people do not realize is the those that 99% of INGO agree are the bad guys will get around it anyway. The law struck down by CU was hurting the small guys…

 

[DoggyDaddy]

 

[AndreusMaximus]

 

[d.kaufman]

This right here^^^^^^

PICTURE THREAD . NOT DISCUSSION THREAD

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

This right here^^^^^^

PICTURE THREAD . NOT DISCUSSION THREAD

View attachment 315866

Huh…could be why the investigations hadn’t stopped already.