Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnumPI
So, basically, you don't think that in giving someone large sums of money, nor calling other companies to do the same, nor paying for vacations, and whatever else comes with any expectation whatsoever? Or that we're going to "play that game"? Because, I'm not.
If a radio show hosts a contest, family members can't even participate. But Congress gets a pass on basic conflict-of-interest laws because ________. And say those laws didn't exist, and those contests were continually won by family members and those close to the prize. They'd lose credibility quite quickly. Yet, Congress, in the same fashion, MUST continue to be taken seriously?
Tax is extortion, then theft. If you don't pay, they kidnap you, and take it anyway. It does both. Not to mention imminent domain and things of that nature.
And to all points Constitutional, it was signed by 38 guys. None of them were me.
|
The first portion in which you energetically, if haphazardly allege ill-defined instances that may or may not constitute bribery I'll ignore until it assumes some coherency.
Taking money through threat of violence is extortion, not theft. Rally. But do recall, it is constitutional and legal. If your argument is a matter of kind and magnitude, I'm with you. If it's on principle, we're on different sides. Kidnapping is a different thing.
If we cannot agree on the primacy of the foundational document; the common ground of the cultural and political nation we have become; then all else will fail.
I wish you well.