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!!
Billionaires shouldn't be able to donate money to support what they believe!
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
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' "
Then you are not a big supporter of the first amendment, I would say.
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.
Agreed very much. Money has way too much influence on campaigns, and the less money involved, the better and more fair the fight.
The joke is that Ron Paul hasn't changed his mind for over 30 years of his political career, save one issue.
The gay guy just lost a massive amount of money.
..how about Ron Paul slept with him, so he owes him a favor
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!
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.
I'm pretty sure that Ron Paul recently admitted in an interview that yes, he was indeed evil
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.
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.
Who is making an issue out of it?...duh......Evan.
Actually you were. I could probably find 20+ posts of you talking about Thiel and Ron Paul.
Ron paul supports a majority of the Liberal agenda, probably just as much if not more than most elected democrats.
Another billionaire man who is against freedom for women....what else is new?
How about school kids who are gunned down in class...cause you know: guns are a right. What do guns do? oh yeah.
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
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.
The option to kill that having a gun gives you.
Well, look at that! You answered your own post without me!
every person has right to donate his/her money to any one
And where is the right found within the constitution?
Actually, it's an ignorant question. See my other posts.
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.
You haven't read the Constitution, your post makes it clear.
Please do! It's a good read.
Well do tell! Where in the Constitution does it say we must practice Capitalism?
You've only yourself to blame for not reading the document that I've used against you 50+ times.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The constitution only GRANTS powers to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
Your question was dead on arrival.
So the rich have the right to completely buy off the politicians and control public policy? At least you are honest with your position.
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.
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?
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.
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.
No, actually it doesn't.
I can make money do anything, but I can't make women do anything.
See how that works?
Well, yeah, but your party is trying to force rape on them....none too nice I must say.
Rape: forcible internal admission without consent.
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).
Anarchist? Sounds like you think you're God!
And now you see the danger of having states over-ride human rights!
Anarchy = God?
Why do I still bother replying to you?!
God = Ultimate Power, answering to no one.
Don't reply--you never bother to answer questions anyway!
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.
by ahorseback 18 months ago
Seriously ?And when they do , They all react the same .
by Evan G Rogers 6 years ago
Billionaires are evil, right? Liberals are always on here reminding us of this.http://www.latimes.com/business/money/l … 9484.storyKABOOM, go the heads.
by Kathryn L Hill 5 years ago
Will our political parties unite to fight the One World Government which the anti Christ is bringing rapidly into existence?I have heard he is a one of the 30 multibillionaires sitting in a powerful position somewhere in the world...scheming scheming. I have heard he is now 51. Even if this is just...
by mio cid 6 years ago
Is Ron Paul giving birth to a movement that can develop into a full fledged political party?Maybe attracting real independents not the pseudo independents that are really just to the left of the democratic party or to the right of the republican party?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|