jump to last post 1-15 of 15 discussions (93 posts)

Liberals' Heads Explode, 2.0

  1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    Billionaires are evil, right? Liberals are always on here reminding us of this.

    http://www.latimes.com/business/money/l … 9484.story

    KABOOM, go the heads.

    1. habee profile image91
      habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Good for her! She did it all on her own??

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

      She should have to pay 65% taxes each year, as well as a one-time tax on her total wealth... according to some liberals.

      This is what I love about America. Someone takes $5,000 and becomes a billionaire. Land of opportunity.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        My favorite part is that liberals don't ever comment on things that disprove their idiotic arguments.

        Conservatives, however, jump all over foolish arguments.

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

          Yeah. Romney is evil for the way he made his money(even if you look at the facts and find out how many jobs Bain created and saved). In fact, I'm fairly certain all rich conservatives are evil.

          Romney of course, is trying to buy the election, but Obama wouldn't dream of spending obscene amounts of money on re-election. Even if he did, it would be ok, because his money wouldn't come from evil rich people like Romney's.

        2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
          Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Evan, you have a tendency to over-generalize.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            ... said the disciple of the Master of Aggregates...

    3. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I don't get it? maybe she is evil, absolutely not all billionaires are it's just the odds of them being so are much much higher .

      http://mtpinnacle.com/pdfs/Psychopath.pdf

      I really don't get your point here...

    4. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I haven't noticed anyone saying billionaires are evil. Buffet and Gates certainly aren't. Some of the NY banksters and greedy CEOs who cook the books and re-price their options to line their pockets certainly are evil.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Buffet got millions from the bailouts, and still owes the IRS billions.

        Isn't that, like, the definition of evil to a liberal? Tax evasion AND the rich stealing money from the poor?

        The only reason I'm not hearing liberal heads exploding is because they ignore the obvious hypocrisy of their arguments.

    5. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Evan: I predict my expose on GM will fade into the oblivion known as page 3+. Some people avoid truth like the plague.

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Well, it's not even that...it's more like yawn....There's been 8 years of Bush exposed crimes, and no one cares.

        So what do you want now?

        We all know there are crooks...we all know they will never be prosecuted for their crimes......we want to know:

        What is going to be our future? Are we going to continue this thievery on the high plains crap?
        Or end it?

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

          LMC, you were in my GE thread saying that they weren't paying enough at 20%.

          But, with Obama's GM-child, it's yawn?

          1. lovemychris profile image80
            lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Yes. It's yawn. What is going to be DONE about it?? That's what I want to know...


            I do believe Obama's tax plan will address some of these issues...and Romney? What will he do about GM?

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

              It was Obama's bailout that GAVE GM their tax-free status. Romney would make them pay their taxes.

              You believe Obama will fix the problem he made?

              1. lovemychris profile image80
                lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Errrr, I don't think so> Romney wants to give high-enders MORE of a tax cut!
                Under Obama, GM will have to pay 30%....

                1 mil and up: 30%

                And GM deal is a loan, not a life-time benny. And plenty of people are grateful for it...plenty of working people.

                Meanwhile, seems Obama gave Mitt a pretty good deal too. He paid 3 mil on 21 million.

                Or is that just the system we have? Yes it is....the whole system needs an over-haul. NOT more of the same!!

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

                  First, you don't understand the difference between marginal and effective tax rates.

                  Secondly, UNDER OBAMA, GM is getting a TAX REFUND. They aren't paying any taxes, under OBAMA.

                  Yes, it's a loan that won't be repaid. We could recuperate all but $12 billion if we sold right now.

                  Everyone pays the same capital gains rates.

                  I agree with that, but I'm talking about GM, who pays no taxes, because of Obama.

    6. ackman1465 profile image60
      ackman1465posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Sara Blakely is BLISTERIN' hot.....   If anyone knows her well..... will you please forward my address, phone number and email address to her and tell her that I'd love to have her visit for a long weekend?????

  2. profile image0
    Peelander Gallyposted 5 years ago

    It's been said before... People who make lots of money are not evil, those who do it by screwing over others (and/or) using unethical and illegal means are.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      she screwed over plenty of people.

      Her product encourages the misogynistic demand that all women must be beautiful and slim in order to get good paying jobs. Women will now grow up with even MORE pressure to look good in order to succeed.

      She also helps destroy the healthy-eating and exercise markets. With these spanx, people will eat more and exercise less - Ms. Obama is furious!

      And, all of her wealth couldn't have been created without the help of the entire population!! She owes all of her money to public!

      Yet, here she is, earning BILLIONS in profits.

      It's sick.

      (God, it's hilarious to be a liberal!)

      1. PrettyPanther profile image84
        PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        What liberal said all that?  Oh, you just made that up, right?  lol

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          *sigh*

          liberals don't even recognize liberal arguments.

          It would be hilarious if not frightening.

          First points - feminist arguments
          Second point - eating healthy is to be determined by the state, a strong liberal position
          Third - Elizabeth Warren, a new liberal talking head
          Fourth - liberals openly hate profits and are pro-socialist (yea, you are. I've seen the arguments on the forums).

          You're next point:

          Yeah, those are liberal arguments.

          "But no one actually said that about this woman"

          I know, that's the point.

          "My head didn't explode"

          Yeah, I know. That's why I made this forum topic".
          ZING!

          1. EmpressFelicity profile image82
            EmpressFelicityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            What is your definition of feminism and why are you against it? (I assume you are against it, given that you've grouped it with several other despised "liberal" things.)

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              No, I'm not against it. Just pointing out the foolish arguments of the left being used against them by real life facts.

              1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
                Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I have never heard any woman complain about Spanx or about other women wearing them....other than how hard they are to get on and off. No feminist argument there...Fail

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
                  Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Women have to live day in and day out thinking about their appearance. And spanx encourages it.

                  Spanx helps feed the misogynistic belief that women need to be beautiful to succeed.

                  When I argue with conservatives, they admit their hypocrisy, but they don't care.

                  When I argue with liberals, they refuse their blatant hypocrisy.

                  1. profile image0
                    Peelander Gallyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I can see what you're trying to do, but it doesn't really hold water. Even if women were paid the same as men and had no problems overcoming all the social prejudices working against them, many of them would still want to get rid of their stubborn muffin tops. It's a lot harder for women to slim down than it is for men. You'd have to say that men who use slimming products are also self-hating.

          2. PrettyPanther profile image84
            PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I'll concede the accuracy of one of your representations of liberal positions.  The first one is a common argument among feminists; I'll agree to that.

            The others are ridiculous.  Either you are unable to comprehend subtlety or you are intentionally misstating commonly held liberal positions:

            "Second point - eating healthy is to be determined by the state, a strong liberal position"

            Seriously?  I don't know a single liberal who believes that.  Ketchup is a vegetable; remember that? 

            "Third - Elizabeth Warren, a new liberal talking head"

            I assume you're referring to this misrepresentation of yours:  "And, all of her wealth couldn't have been created without the help of the entire population!! She owes all of her money to public!"

            Here is what Elizabeth Warren actually said.  Do you see anything about anyone "owing all of their money to the public"?: 

            "There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there — good for you!

            But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that maurauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea — God bless. Keep a big hunk of it.

            But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."

            "Fourth - liberals openly hate profits and are pro-socialist (yea, you are. I've seen the arguments on the forums)."

            This is the dumbest one of all.  I own a business and it makes a profit.  Yeah, I really hate that.  roll  In addition, my business serves other businesses by helping them make a profit.  Yeah, I really hate that, too.

          3. Uninvited Writer profile image82
            Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            What a humourous piece from someone who imagines he knows how all left leaning people think...

            I was hoping people would continue to ignore it with your sad attempt to bump it up.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I cited the general sources of the arguments. They are all liberal.

              Deal with the hypocrisy.

      2. profile image0
        Peelander Gallyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Oh, you're funny. Even super slim starlets wear Spanx to smooth out their silhouettes and erase their panty lines in gowns. Some people like these things and some people don't; some people like corsets and some people don't. Your attempt at rabble rousing has met with resounding defeat, deal with it.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
          Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          How come they don't make Spanx for men?

          1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
            Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I imagine there are products men use to hold in their stomach smile

            1. lovemychris profile image80
              lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Butt and penile implants are the new thing. smile

              Spanx/Shmanx!!! when you take it all off....it's still all there!

          2. EmpressFelicity profile image82
            EmpressFelicityposted 5 years ago in reply to this
    2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      True. It depends on how they make their money.

  3. PrettyPanther profile image84
    PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago

    Hi Evan.  Once again, my head is still intact.  I don't know much about her personal life, but business-wise she is a great role model for young women who want to start their own businesses.  I make a living working with small businesses to help them succeed, so I love reading about success stories.  In fact, you've given me a great idea about a way to connect with the young women in this conservative rural area who mostly think that they must either go to college to find a Christian man to marry or work at Wal-Mart.

    Thank you for sharing!  smile

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Do you demand she pay a 40% tax rate, like Buffett and Obama want?

      1. PrettyPanther profile image84
        PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Evan, the reality is that someone with a massive amount of wealth won't even notice a 3-5% increase in taxes.  Their income varies by much more than that on a regular basis (daily, monthly, yearly) depending on how their investments are faring. 

        That 3-5% increase would go far in helping get our economy back on track for very little sacrifice from the wealthy.

        1. innersmiff profile image79
          innersmiffposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Government revenue and spending has increased exponentially for 100 years. Why in the heavens would even MORE money to the government get the economy back on track?

          1. PrettyPanther profile image84
            PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I don't know, maybe to pay for the two unfunded wars that GWB got us into, for starters?

            1. innersmiff profile image79
              innersmiffposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              And Obama is continuing . . . so it's like burning money.

              1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
                Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Unfortunately, you can't end wars by waving a magic wand.

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
                  Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, actually you can.
                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgEC7tZiW9Q

                  The president is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF.

              2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Obama is winding down the wars started by Bush and Cheney.

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
                  Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  No, he's really not.

                  Ye must be blind.

                  There are Thousands of military contractors still in Iraq, Afghanistan hasn't ended, we invaded Pakistan, we have a blockade of Iran, we're bombing Syria, and ... jeez, I've lost track of all the killing Obama is responsible for.

                  OBAMA IS THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. HE COULD END THESE WARS IN ONE DAY.

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                    Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I would like to see him to move faster. But don't forget that the foreign policy establishment (NYTimes, Washington Post, Council on Foreign Relations, et al) all supported the foolish, costly, unnecessary invasion of Iraq. Several months ago the NYT referred to the "necessary war in Afghanistan." A number of Republicans are supporting a couple of more wars (Iran and Syria). Obama is commander in chief, but that doesn't mean he can do whatever he wants to do. That said, I can think of a number of things he hasn't done that he could and should have done and others that he has done that I strongly disagree with. He doesn't measure up to Roosevelt's ability to pull the strings required to get everything done.

          2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
            Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            The answer that responsible, knowledgeable people believe is that a combination of reducing expenditures and increased tax revenues is what is needed to bring the deficit under control and begin to whittle away at the national debt.

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Inequality of income and wealth has increased to the point where a lot of people are losing faith in our democratic, free-enterprise system. There has been a huge redistribution of income and wealth away from the middle class to the very rich. Our tax system is in bad need of overhaul.

  4. Chuck profile image85
    Chuckposted 5 years ago

    Evan, your link to the LA Times article was great but that article and the Forbes profile article, on which it was based, basically lauded her ability to turn a $5,000 investment into $1 Billion.  However, Sara Blakely did not simply invest $5,000 and see it magically turn into $1 Billion. 

    Instead, finding that she couldn't find an acceptable substitute for existing pantyhose, which she didn't like, she set about trying to come up with one herself.  She did this in her spare time while holding down a full time day job and part-time evening job.  In the 12 years that have elapsed since she began, at age 29, working on the project and initially funding it with her then life savings of $5,000 she put in a lot of time, effort and more money.

    As to taxes, it should be pointed out that income taxes are taxes on income and not on wealth and Sara Blakely is listed in the Forbes Billionaire list because her wealth is $1 Billion not her income.  Her income probably comes  from her salary and profits/dividends from the company she owns.  The portion that is salary would be taxed the same as that of everyone else.  However, she could also take income in the form of dividends from the stock in her company and pay taxes on that income at the lower dividend rate.  She could also simply re-invest her company's profits in expansion rather than cash dividends, thereby increasing her wealth but deferring taxes until such time as she sells the company and pays a lower capital gains tax rate on the cash proceeds she would receive.

    However, it should be remembered that her company pays income taxes on its profits.  With her company she is a job creator and hires and pays employees who pay income taxes.  She appears to outsource to other domestic companies the manufacture of the product itself as well as selling the product through other retail stores all of which employ people who have to pay income taxes.  The sum of these taxes paid by others who rely directly or indirectly on the business she has created for their income probably exceeds what could be extracted directly from Sara Blakely in higher taxes directly on her. 

    Finally, if we raise taxes on productive, job creating people like Sara Blakely there is no guaranty that she would stay in business as she would have the option of closing the business and retiring and living off her accumulated wealth. 

    Liberals should read and head the classic fairytale about the King who Killed the Goose that Laid the Golden Eggs and learn from the fate suffered by that greedy ruler.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I could make the same arguments against all the people liberals hate today.

      That's why your head is exploding. You just don't realize it.

      1. profile image0
        Peelander Gallyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That's a fabulous reply that addresses all of your points. I'm pretty sure your head is exploding and you're the one who doesn't realise it.

        1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
          Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I'd guess a nervous breakdown smile

  5. JSChams profile image61
    JSChamsposted 5 years ago

    Folks the liberals don't like will always be viewed as "screwing over others" whther such is the case oor not. It follows the same logic as their use of hate sppech. Consrvative=hate sppech, liberal=just kidfding around. It's all a very dangerous hypocrisy.

  6. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Perhaps you can show me one instance where Obama is using hate speech and lies about an R candidate....as every single one of them (save Ron Paul) is doing to him?

    1. JSChams profile image61
      JSChamsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Oh he himself is not doing so but his supporters seem to have no moral compunction whatever about  hate speech. When you are Bill Maher(who has donated one million dollars to Obama's super PAC)you think you are better than the rest and the rules don't apply.
      Hate speech,if there be such,is hate speech regardless from whose lips it is passing. Period. That's the only way that can work. So if everyone wants to jump on Limbaugh they should be demanding the PAC give the money back. Of course that won't happen because of the hypocrisy of the progressive left and I am certain I will hear that Maher is just a comedian.
      I take great interest in noting the gyrations the progressives go through to justify things.

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Look.....sometimes people cross the line.

        Why do you think Maher was fired before? And Stern? And Sanchez? And Imus?

        They all crossed a lot of people's line.

        And you think Rush should get a pass?

        He blew it big time this time.....although as far as I'm concerned, he's had a free pass for 20 years!

        Bout Time he pays up.

        1. JSChams profile image61
          JSChamsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No he doesn't get a pass. He apologized and made as nice as he can make it. My point is your other friends there will never do so and you apparently don't  think they should have to. Why? Well they share your viewpoint right?

          1. lovemychris profile image80
            lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            He needs to apologize for having rocks in his head.
            He does not even get the issue.

            Some apology..."I apologize for being like them"....Jurk.

            Firing is the only option. Treat him like an equal.

            http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/201 … pology.cnn

            1. lovemychris profile image80
              lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this
            2. JSChams profile image61
              JSChamsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Who is going to fire him? He runs his own company and all you guys are doing i earning him listeners out of curiosity factor. The people who broadcast him have too high ratings in his time slot to dump him. It's called a business. People who don't like him can change stations.

              1. lovemychris profile image80
                lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                he's a liabilty.

                And yes it is business. His mouth over-ran his bank account!

                1. JSChams profile image61
                  JSChamsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Yet you don't get that he has made his peace. You can tune in MSNBC on any given night and hear some stuff really really did I mention really similar.

                  If we are going to call it hate speech it is going to apply to whomever uses it. It does not matter if the person you are speaking about is a political figure or a rutabaga. Words mean things. Stop trying to squash him and pretending the left has developed a method for removing the odor from their feces.

                  1. lovemychris profile image80
                    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Oh man.....he's been doing this for a LOOOONG time. You think this is like one incident, just forget it?

                    It's been since 1991. Femi-Nazi. Ohohohoh...ok, that's pretty funny. but...
                    Clinton is not MY president:liar-in-chief: pot-smoking draft-dodger: philanderer-in-chief:he killed Hilary's partner.pres is a murderer day after day after day.

                    Kerry and the swift-boaters...I wasn't listening by then...but I can only imagine.
                    Obama the magic Negro: the jack-ass: slut, prostitute, so much sex it's unbelieavable...

                    How long does he get away with it?

                    Meanwhile, his co-horts in media are FIRED for less!

                    Good Riddance Russshhhh-Bag. Maybe Beckles has a spot for you on his rag-io show.

  7. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    "Why extremists always focus on women remains a mystery..But they all seem to..They want to control women" - H Clinton

  8. gmwilliams profile image82
    gmwilliamsposted 5 years ago

    I am proud of this woman who invented Spanx and anyone who uses his/her potential to the utmost.   There is nothing wrong with being wealthy whether it is being a millionaire or billionaire.   Many self-made people sacrificed, strategized, and worked smart to achieve their goals.   

    What people fail to realize that millionaires and billionaires create jobs for the economy.   Think of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs.  Many of them pay their share in taxes and contribute immensely to charities.  Oprah Winfrey is a prime example of a billionaire who does this.  Yes, I am a Liberal in ideology; however, I do not believe that being rich is evil. 

    I believe that rich people are smart.  Yes, smart, especially if they are self-made millionaires and billionaires.  In essence, rich people contribute more to society per capita than poor people.    It seems to me that many people are inoculated that money is evil and subconsciously learn to abhor wealth.  To these peoople, wealth is associated with evil and greed.

    There is the instance of inverse logic stating that it is noble to be poor and/or at least have the struggling mentality.   It seems to me that there is a cult of "averageness" in this society.   Many people, in essence, are quite envious of the rich because the latter have a lifestyle that the former can only wish for and dream of.   This envy of the rich and wealthy is masked in some many ways i.e. "money does not buy happiness",  "he/she may be poor but he/she is happy",  and " who wants all that money anyway."   

    Self-made millionaires and billionaires are those who often go beyond their specific comfort zone in order to succeed.  Many non-rich people often prefer to live in their specific comfort zone whether they are happy or miserable.  Also self-made millionaires, billionaires, and other highly successful people have quite a different mindset which non-rich people do not often have.

    1. ackman1465 profile image60
      ackman1465posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Like you, GMWilliams.... I am all for SPANX.... in fact I openly encourage my girlfriend to SPANK me each night.... If feels Oh-so goooooood....

      1. profile image0
        Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        roll

  9. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The U.S. Treasury is giving up $14 billion in tax revenue because of a sweetheart deal it's giving General Motors.

    Officials with the Treasury Department and GM insist that the tax break was not special treatment, and that any company going through bankruptcy could have gotten the same breaks.

    Also, the fact that GM kept the tax breaks made its stock more attractive at the time of its initial public offering last November, Wilson said.

    "It made it easier to sell shares. It helped GM get on its feet sooner," he said.

    Treasury held 61% of the stock at the time of the IPO and received $13.5 billion, or about three-quarters of the proceeds from the record first-day stock sale. So taxpayers got some benefit from the tax break.

    But Wilson said the improvement in stock value due to the tax break will offset only a small fraction of the tax revenue Treasury is giving up.

    "Is it worth the cost? No. It's a bad policy from a government point of view"

    Ok....so is it any worse than capital gains taxed at 15%? Worse than FICA capped at $106,000?

    Worse than TARP?
    Worse than churches not paying any taxes at all....ever?

    I think the good outweighs the bad in this case. But since they're profiting again...they should most def pay taxes now...at 30%! IMO IMO

  10. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Robert Reich‏

    "Join the rush against Rush. His remaining advertisers must know you've had enough. Your dollars will not subsidize public indecency."

    Yes!

  11. profile image0
    Longhunterposted 5 years ago

    Rush is now refusing to let advertisers who want back on his show. They saw a huge stock drop and want back in.

    This is nothing more than a minor blip on Rush's radar. It's time for liberals to move on. You're not going to bring down Rush. Besides, Liberals have enough to worry about.

    Liberals' heads exploding everywhere? How is that a bad thing?

  12. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago
    1. profile image0
      Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I have a VERY strong feeling you'll be wrong yet again, LMC. You should be getting use to that feeling by now, as often as it happens. Some things will never change.

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        So, Americans LIKE indecency?

        hmmm, I would have thought better of you LH.

        I mean, if every woman who takes the pill is a sl*t.....you are describing half of America!

        And if you think it's ok that this guy wants to see porno films of a woman he's never met, but just assumes she's a prostitute....good god. Where are the morals, man?

        Morals:

        Men
        On
        Rages
        Against
        Ladies
        Stinks
        !

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

          Not indecency, LMC. Most Americans are just getting tired of the absurd BS of the Left and it's backfiring on them a whole lot more than they think.

          I'm not describing anyone in any way except the Left as being full of BS. That's nothing new. The Left has always been full to the top with BS.

          Where are the morals of a woman who needs $3,000 annually for contraception?

          Hell, give me her address and I'll send her a few condoms. They're only a couple of bucks a piece. Lord knows we don't need nor want another Liberal reproducing.

          OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!

          One
          Big
          Ass
          Mistake,
          America
          !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          We'll add one thing to the LONG list of things you hate, LMC.

          LMC hates men. CHECK!!! Got it.

          This list is getting longer by the day.

          I have a question. If this woman says she needs $3,000 annually for contraception, how is she vertical long enough to testify in front of Congress?

  13. I am DB Cooper profile image69
    I am DB Cooperposted 5 years ago

    She's clearly a hard worker and she made a product that women love, but her brand also got a huge boost thanks to some help from a couple billionaires. First, she was selected as a contestant 8 years ago on the short-lived reality show Rebel Billionaire with Richard Branson, where she received multiple opportunities to showcase her young company's product. A year later, Spanx got an endorsement from Oprah.

  14. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago
  15. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Pathetic.

 
working