jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (70 posts)

Liberals' Brains Might Explode

  1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 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

    1. profile image0
      Mtbailzposted 5 years ago in 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' "

      1. Aya Katz profile image89
        Aya Katzposted 5 years ago in reply to this

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

        1. profile image0
          Mtbailzposted 5 years ago in 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.

          1. TheMagician profile image93
            TheMagicianposted 5 years ago in 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.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in 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!

          2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in 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.

    2. Paul Wingert profile image79
      Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The gay guy just lost a massive amount of money.

    3. Greek One profile image78
      Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

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

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in 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!

        1. Greek One profile image78
          Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The image of Ron Paul having sex is not funny!?!?!

          WTF!?!?


          Just close your eyes and imaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagine

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            lol.

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

    4. MelissaBarrett profile image60
      MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in 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.

      1. Greek One profile image78
        Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

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

        smile

      2. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 5 years ago in 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.

        1. Greek One profile image78
          Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          logs in a cabin?

          that's a funny term for sodomy

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
            MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I've heard much funnier.

    5. Onusonus profile image85
      Onusonusposted 5 years ago in 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. wink

      1. lovemychris profile image81
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

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

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

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

          1. lovemychris profile image81
            lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            ahaha.....2 at most.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I didn't say FORUMS, I said POSTS.

    6. hallbo1 profile image60
      hallbo1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

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

  2. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

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

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "I hate babies"

      1. lovemychris profile image81
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in 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.

        1. gregas profile image75
          gregasposted 5 years ago in 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

          1. lovemychris profile image81
            lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in 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.

            1. gregas profile image75
              gregasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              LMC, take what option away?

              1. lovemychris profile image81
                lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                The option to kill that having a gun gives you.

                1. gregas profile image75
                  gregasposted 5 years ago in 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

            2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

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

  3. pisean282311 profile image57
    pisean282311posted 5 years ago

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

    1. Aya Katz profile image89
      Aya Katzposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Agreed.

    2. profile image0
      Mtbailzposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      And where is the right found within the constitution?

      1. lovemychris profile image81
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Ha! Good question!

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

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

          1. lovemychris profile image81
            lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in 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.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You haven't read the Constitution, your post makes it clear.

              Please do! It's a good read.

              1. lovemychris profile image81
                lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

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

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                  Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

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

                  1. lovemychris profile image81
                    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Not an answer.

      2. Reality Bytes profile image91
        Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Right to pursue Happiness?

        1. profile image0
          Mtbailzposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          That's the Declaration of Independence.

          1. Reality Bytes profile image91
            Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in 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.

            1. profile image0
              Mtbailzposted 5 years ago in 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.

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Much of what the DoI says contradicts the Constitution:

                No... it really doesn't....

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in 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.

          1. profile image0
            Mtbailzposted 5 years ago in 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.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in 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.

      3. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Incorrect question.

        The constitution only GRANTS powers to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

        Your question was dead on arrival.

    3. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 5 years ago in 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.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in 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.

        1. profile image0
          Sooner28posted 5 years ago in 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.

  4. Cassie Smith profile image74
    Cassie Smithposted 5 years ago

    Liberal brains? lol

  5. PrettyPanther profile image84
    PrettyPantherposted 5 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?

  6. innersmiff profile image80
    innersmiffposted 5 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.

  7. Disturbia profile image62
    Disturbiaposted 5 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.

    1. lovemychris profile image81
      lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Money has more rights than a woman!

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in 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?

        1. lovemychris profile image81
          lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in 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.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in 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).

            1. lovemychris profile image81
              lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Anarchist? Sounds like you think you're God!

              And now you see the danger of having states over-ride human rights!

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                ... what?

                Anarchy = God?

                What?

                ...

                ... what?

                Why do I still bother replying to you?!

                1. lovemychris profile image81
                  lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  God = Ultimate Power, answering to no one.

                  Don't reply--you never bother to answer questions anyway!

                  1. innersmiff profile image80
                    innersmiffposted 5 years ago in 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.

  8. SomewayOuttaHere profile image61
    SomewayOuttaHereposted 5 years ago

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

  9. steveamy profile image61
    steveamyposted 5 years ago

    Brains intact.........

 
working