Liberals' Brains Might Explode

1. 60

   Evan G Rogersposted 12 years ago

   Uh oh!
   
   A gay person - who is a billionaire - is donating a massive amount of money to Ron Paul's campaign!!
   
   What will the liberal response be?
   
   Gay people should stand up for their rights!!
   
   or
   
   Billionaires shouldn't be able to donate money to support what they believe!
   
   or
   
   Ron Paul is evil, and this man clearly doesn't know how to spend his money, even though he's a billionaire!
   
   ... can't wait!
   
   Ron Paul 2012!
   http://www.edgeonthenet.com/news/politi … e_down_low

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Mtbailzposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I would use your second response as a base but I would change "money" to "millions of dollars" and "what they believe" to "a political candidate". So it would read more like, "Billionares shouldn't be able to donate 'millions of dollars' to support 'a political candidate' "

      replyreport
      1. 85

         Aya Katzposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Then you are not a big supporter of the first amendment, I would say.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Mtbailzposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Aya, you would be quite wrong. I am found of the first amendment, but not of the Supreme Court's interpretation of it. No matter how people spin it, money is not speech. It is against any form of logic known to man. I am completely against the use of money to sway elections. If it were possible I would rather money not play any part in political campaigns.

            replyreport
            1. 87

               TheMagicianposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Agreed very much. Money has way too much influence on campaigns, and the less money involved, the better and more fair the fight.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Did you know that Ron Paul hasn't changed his mind (except on the one issue of abortion) over his 30 year political history?
                  
                  ZING!

                  replyreport
            2. 60

               Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               The joke is that Ron Paul hasn't changed his mind for over 30 years of his political career, save one issue.

               replyreport
   2. 60

      Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The gay guy just lost a massive amount of money.

      replyreport
   3. 63

      Greek Oneposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      ..how about Ron Paul slept with him, so he owes him a favor

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         nah, that one isn't really funny. Don't get me wrong, it isn't BAD, just... it's lacking your normal ironic humor.
         
         I expect a higher level of comedic genius from the Greek One!

         replyreport
         1. 63

            Greek Oneposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            The image of Ron Paul having sex is not funny!?!?!
            
            WTF!?!?
            
            
            Just close your eyes and imaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagine

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               lol.
               
               The zing you made in another forum about RuPaul was better!

               replyreport
   4. 58

      MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      My liberal response:
      
      1. Not all gays are liberals thus he probably is standing up for what he believes.
      
      2. Anyone should be able to donate to anything they wish.
      
      
      3.  Ron Paul isn't necessarily evil (I don't know the man personally so couldn't tell you) but I don't think he is electable.  I actually like a couple of his views but not enough to ignore the others.  I think the same problem exists with what should be his "base" of voters.  The same things I, as a liberal, like will make conservatives cringe and the things that conservatives like about him would make me cringe.  His views are so extreme in most cases that the moderates cringe too.

      replyreport
      1. 63

         Greek Oneposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I'm pretty sure that Ron Paul recently admitted in an interview that yes, he was indeed evil
         
         

         replyreport
      2. 61

         Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Yeah preety much the above. I am not at all surprised though, have you heard of the log cabin Republicans? they are Republicans which support gay rights I actually have a deeply conservative gay friend, there is no contradiction, when you think about it.

         replyreport
         1. 63

            Greek Oneposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            logs in a cabin?
            
            that's a funny term for sodomy

            replyreport
            1. 58

               MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I've heard much funnier.

               replyreport
   5. 0

      Onusonusposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      When Bill Maher does it for Obama it's ok, but when someone does it for a republican they are pushing their evil agenda on an otherwise pure and innocent campaign.

      replyreport
      1. 76

         lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Who is making an issue out of it?...duh......Evan.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Actually you were. I could probably find 20+ posts of you talking about Thiel and Ron Paul.

            replyreport
            1. 76

               lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               ahaha.....2 at most.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I didn't say FORUMS, I said POSTS.

                  replyreport
   6. 59

      hallbo1posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Ron paul supports a majority of the Liberal agenda, probably just as much if not more than most elected democrats.

      replyreport
2. 76

   lovemychrisposted 12 years ago

   Another billionaire man who is against freedom for women....what else is new?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      "I hate babies"

      replyreport
      1. 76

         lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         How about school kids who are gunned down in class...cause you know: guns are a right. What do guns do? oh yeah.

         replyreport
         1. 82

            gregasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            People do have the right to bear arms. Don't get me wrong, I personally, don't like guns. But that is in the Constitution. My feeling is, any person owning a gun is fully responsibe for what happens with that gun, wether in his/her hands or not. The guns should be kept in a safe place when not in that persons personal posetion. Hub coming to explain in more detail. My opinion, Greg

            replyreport
            1. 76

               lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Right: you have the right. Not everybody who owns guns kills people, but that option is there.
               
               Those people would scream bloody murder if you wanted to take that option away.

               replyreport
               1. 82

                  gregasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  LMC, take what option away?

                  replyreport
                  1. 76

                     lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     The option to kill that having a gun gives you.

                     replyreport
                     1. 82

                        gregasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Then they are responsible for what they do with it. They have to face the punishment. There is nothing you can do about the option to kill. That is always there, with or without a gun. Greg

                        replyreport
               2. 60

                  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Well, look at that! You answered your own post without me!

                  replyreport
3. 63

   pisean282311posted 12 years ago

   every person has right to donate his/her money to any one

   replyreport
   1. 85

      Aya Katzposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Agreed.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Mtbailzposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      And where is the right found within the constitution?

      replyreport
      1. 76

         lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Ha! Good question!

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Actually, it's an ignorant question. See my other posts.

            replyreport
            1. 76

               lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Actually, I thought it was quite astute, as all you people who want to take rights away always bleat: But it's in the Constitution!....
               
               Good question on anything--since the Constitution is used to justify everything you people want to do.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  You haven't read the Constitution, your post makes it clear.
                  
                  Please do! It's a good read.

                  replyreport
                  1. 76

                     lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Well do tell! Where in the Constitution does it say we must practice Capitalism?

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        You've only yourself to blame for not reading the document that I've used against you 50+ times.

                        replyreport
                        1. 76

                           lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Not an answer.

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              I'll post my response, but you first have to promise to answer what I post AFTER reading it. You must then go through my post line by line, or at least paragraph by paragraph, and then write a coherent response.
                              
                              I don't want to waste my time.

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 Yeah, LMC. I didn't expect for you to agree to "reading" and "responding thoughtfully".

                                 replyreport
      2. 74

         Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Right to pursue Happiness?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Mtbailzposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            That's the Declaration of Independence.

            replyreport
            1. 74

               Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Semantics:
               
               True American Government
               Constitution Connected To the Declaration of Independence
               
               The Supreme Court declared in 1897, the Constitution is the body and letter of which the Declaration of Independence is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.
               
               The Constitution itself connects itself to the Declaration of Independence by dating itself from the date of the Declaration of Independence, thereby showing clearly that it is the second great document in the government of these United States and is not to be understood without the first. How many today say the Constitution stands alone devoid of all reference to the Declaration? Let them see hear and understand what those who wrote the Constitution said about our American government. See Article VII.
               
               The Founders believed the Declaration was the foundational document in our Constitutional form of government. The Founders dated their government acts from the year of the Declaration rather than the Constitution. The date of the Declaration of Independence was the recognized date of Sovereignty and Independence of the United States.
               
               In the Declaration, the Founders established the foundation and the core values on which the Constitution was to operate. The Constitution was never to be interpreted apart from those values expressed in the Declaration.
               
               Samuel Adams pointed out: Before the formation of this Constitution this Declaration of Independence was received and ratified by all the States in the Union, and has never been disannulled.
               
               Well into the twentieth century, the Declaration and the Constitution were viewed as inseparable and interdependent. While the Court's change of standards has perhaps been a display of poor judgment, the Court's actions have actually been illegal under the standards of original intent. Furthermore they have violated the value system of "the laws of nature and of nature's God" established in the Declaration of Independence.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Mtbailzposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, the Declaration of Independence inspired free government, but they aren't that similar. First of all, the DOI was looking to split ties with a British Monarch and the Constitution was looking to create ties between the states and people of the US. Secondly, much of what the DOI says is contradicted by the Constitution itself.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Much of what the DoI says contradicts the Constitution:
                     
                     No... it really doesn't....

                     replyreport
         2. 60

            Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Reality: you fell for his false premise.
            
            The Constitution does NOT prohibit actions by individuals, it only prohibits powers to the states, or grants them to the federal government.
            
            Thus "I want to give some guy money" is NOT prohibited, thus the constitution has no opinion of the matter.
            
            In reality: Mtbailz must show YOU where the power is PROHIBITED to the PEOPLE.
            
            It isn't.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Mtbailzposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Evan,
               We're dealing with federal elections to decide the President of the US. To think that the government wouldn't have the right to regulate at least a bit would be wrong.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  And yet, it isn't!
                  
                  The constitution in no way says that you can't give your money to someone running for office.
                  
                  In fact, the Constitution makes it illegal for federal office holders to pass legislation giving money to companies/individuals.
                  
                  Please read the document, it is a great read.

                  replyreport
      3. 60

         Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Incorrect question.
         
         The constitution only GRANTS powers to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
         
         Your question was dead on arrival.

         replyreport
   3. 0

      Sooner28posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      So the rich have the right to completely buy off the politicians and control public policy?  At least you are honest with your position.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         No.
         
         You're allowed to give money to politicians, but it is illegal for Congressmen to pass laws giving money to individuals/industries/companies.
         
         The 10th amendment clearly makes such actions illegal.
         
         To put this in plain terms: Sure, you can give the casino all the money you want, but they can't give you any money back.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Sooner28posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            They can give you government contracts, special tax breaks, and subsidies.  That's the legal way to give a payback.
            
            There is also the whole revolving door get hired in an industry you supported while in office type situation also.

            replyreport
4. 60

   Cassie Smithposted 12 years ago

   Liberal brains?

   replyreport
5. 0

   PrettyPantherposted 12 years ago

   Really?  My head is fully intact.  A person who happens to be rich and gay donated money to Ron Paul.  Is this supposed to be earth-shattering news?  Shocking?  What?

   replyreport
6. 66

   innersmiffposted 12 years ago

   All this rubbish about political donations is a non-starter. What we want is to take away the power of government to affect the basic tenants of a free society and hold politicians accountable for what they do in office. How come government positions are the only jobs in the world where you can't get fired for violating contracts? We pay them to provide a service (their manifesto), and if they don't provide that service, we have every right to fire them or withdraw payment.

   replyreport
7. 60

   Disturbiaposted 12 years ago

   People should be able to do whatever they want with their own money, and if they choose to donate it to Ron Paul's campaign or give it away on a street corner, that's their own business.

   replyreport
   1. 76

      lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Money has more rights than a woman!

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         No, actually it doesn't.
         
         I can make money do anything, but I can't make women do anything.
         
         See how that works?

         replyreport
         1. 76

            lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Well, yeah, but your party is trying to force rape on them....none too nice I must say.
            
            Rape: forcible internal admission without consent.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               My party? No: the anarchists are not doing any such thing.
               
               The REPUBLICANS, however, are trying to make STATE laws so that a woman must take a probe up the wazzoo.
               
               I agree with you on this one: that's ridiculous and should be ended.
               
               However, abortion is murder, so the issue shouldn't really exist (except in my own self-avowed hypocritical claims that abortions are OK in rape and incest situations).

               replyreport
               1. 76

                  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Anarchist? Sounds like you think you're God!
                  
                  And now you see the danger of having states over-ride human rights!

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     ... what?
                     
                     Anarchy = God?
                     
                     What?
                     
                     ...
                     
                     ... what?
                     
                     Why do I still bother replying to you?!

                     replyreport
                     1. 76

                        lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        God = Ultimate Power, answering to no one.
                        
                        Don't reply--you never bother to answer questions anyway!

                        replyreport
                        1. 66

                           innersmiffposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Actually statists have that condition. They believe 'leaders' should not be questioned, and it trickles down every to every figure of 'authority', whether it be teachers or police officers. Anarchism is the least 'Godly' of all political systems because it truly sees everyone as equal.

                           replyreport
8. 61

   SomewayOuttaHereposted 12 years ago

   ...luv the title of the thread...

   replyreport
9. 61

   steveamyposted 12 years ago

   Brains intact.........

   replyreport