Liberal Forum

Fuelman » 12 May 2014 4:49 pm » wrote:I like Wall Street, where can you turn $50k into $300k plus in 10 years??

I wouldn't want to count on a bunch of Mom and Pop store fronts to reach those retirement goals,,,,,,

You're a minimum wage closet homosexual without a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of, ya knuckle-dragging, pin-headed homunculus.

indago » 12 May 2014 6:32 am » wrote:
A "group of people" is not included within the Bill of Rights, which are individual rights. And, GE is, actually, a person: an artificial person.

Each individual does not lose his individual rights while engaging as a group, but when the group diverts corporate funds toward the political process, then those individuals should be charged and indicted for fraudulent use of the corporation funds.

The USSC in NAACP V ALABAMA did rule that the freedom of association is an essential part of the right to free speech. A union or a corporation is an association of people. Under citizens united they don't lose their rights as individuals or to collectively speak as a group.

This is why "Rights" need to be restricted. When you allow corporations to have a "political voice" because people can't have their "rights diminished in groups," you get absurd results like corporations bribing politicians with campaign funding and drowning the voices of people who are not in corporations and can't command the level of money businesses do.


It also creates the problem of double representation. Each individual of the corporation has a voice, and then he has a voice AGAIN as a member of the corporation, only with vastly more resources attached to it.

Rights need to be "curtailed."

Cannonpointer » 12 May 2014 6:46 pm » wrote:
You're a minimum wage closet homosexual without a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of, ya knuckle-dragging, pin-headed homunculus.

Ha, I take it a good portion of that $250K PROFIT CAME FROM YOUR LOSSE'S . Our pot and window will be in the form of a 2800 sq/ft ranch done in bout 2-1/2 months with a cool $75-100k instant profit. And just to annoy you further, we have teamed with one other investor and our builder and will build 3-4 custom houses that will retail from $700k to $1.2 Million. Found several lots at $250k with million dollar views.

Yeah, and I fly in my private helicopter to France every day from my private island in Greece so I can play roulette at Monte Carloj

This is why "Rights" need to be restricted. When you allow corporations to have a "political voice" because people can't have their "rights diminished in groups," you get absurd results like corporations bribing politicians with campaign funding and drowning the voices of people who are not in corporations and can't command the level of money businesses do.

Corporations are a response to government, as much as unions are to corporations and government. Government control over economic and social affairs is the reason why 'bribery' and funding of campaigns by private groups is necessary, least a tyranny of a majority through government become a reality - the catch22 is that a wealthy minority can eventually seize power and run the show AKA like modern America. The only way left really is to have the government fund political campaigns, and not allow private funding, but that would just entrench the status quo and be highly anti-democratic (unless un-elected and elected parties each get the same funding from the government).

Cannonpointer » 02 May 2014 10:35 pm » wrote:Instead of definitions, let's talk functions.

Look ...business.

Pinning your own threads, eh? That's not desperate. No, not at all. But you know, you may be onto sumpin. I'm thinking maybe if I pin The Mighty Horse Thread

http://www.example.com?q=/index.php?/ ... ode-in-on/

at the real example.com?q=

http://www.example.com?q=/index.php?/ ... cal-forum/

maybe I, like you, can get me some views.

Then when I grow up I can charge folks for stuff and be able to afford myself a stuffed Donkey.

Huey » 13 May 2014 8:09 am » wrote:
The USSC in NAACP V ALABAMA did rule that the freedom of association is an essential part of the right to free speech. A union or a corporation is an association of people. Under citizens united they don't lose their rights as individuals or to collectively speak as a group.

Yet a homosexual thinks they GAIN rights. Spit put the dick.

teacher » 14 May 2014 4:50 am » wrote:
Pinning your own threads, eh? That's not desperate. No, not at all. But you know, you may be onto sumpin. I'm thinking maybe if I pin The Mighty Horse Thread

http://www.example.com?q=/index.php?/to ... ode-in-on/

at the real example.com?q=

http://www.example.com?q=/index.php?/fo ... cal-forum/

maybe I, like you, can get me some views.

Then when I grow up I can charge folks for stuff and be able to afford myself a stuffed Donkey.

Seems like every time you come sliming into this the site, you're blubbering like a little ****. Dry up, you little bitch, or I'll give you something to cry about.

Technocrat » 13 May 2014 11:33 am » wrote:This is why "Rights" need to be restricted. When you allow corporations to have a "political voice" because people can't have their "rights diminished in groups," you get absurd results like corporations bribing politicians with campaign funding and drowning the voices of people who are not in corporations and can't command the level of money businesses do.


It also creates the problem of double representation. Each individual of the corporation has a voice, and then he has a voice AGAIN as a member of the corporation, only with vastly more resources attached to it.

Rights need to be "curtailed."

I don't think you understand Citizen's United. It did not affect the ban on DIRECT CONTRIBUTIONS from unions or corporations to candidates or political parties. It affected whether unions, corporations, and non profit corporations could spend money on electronic electioneering, advertising.

I see you are not concerned about unions having double representation, or bribing politicians. Or you are not aware that Citizen's United was also about them.

Huey » 14 May 2014 11:49 am » wrote:
I don't think you understand Citizen's United. It did not affect the ban on DIRECT CONTRIBUTIONS from unions or corporations to candidates or political parties. It affected whether unions, corporations, and non profit corporations could spend money on electronic electioneering, advertising.

I see you are not concerned about unions having double representation, or bribing politicians. Or you are not aware that Citizen's United was also about them.

You're a fifth columnist traitor and a progressive little nanny state piglet - pro torture, chairs are people - complete piece of ****.

teacher » 14 May 2014 4:50 am » wrote: maybe I, like you, can get me some views.

Maybe so, kid. I went to the view gettin' place and got me some, the same way I figger others may have done, in other places, at other times.

Know what I mean, Vern?

Cannonpointer » 14 May 2014 11:59 am » wrote:
You're a fifth columnist traitor and a progressive little nanny state piglet - pro torture, chairs are people - complete piece of ****.

I'll take this non sequitur your surrender on the topic at hand.

As you and your buds continue to fight for less liberty I will stick to my values.

Huey » 15 May 2014 6:58 am » wrote: I'll take this non sequitur your surrender on the topic at hand.

As you and your buds continue to fight for less liberty I will stick to my values.

if you support and endorse torture you are no different from the terrorists.

Brattle Street » 15 May 2014 9:49 am » wrote: if you support and endorse torture you are no different from the terrorists.

And the reframe is complete.

I am sure a troll of your stature can find the many,many threads where cannon and I have discussed that issue. But you don't really care. You are just a troll, after all. Ignorant of current events and thread topics but quick with a mediocre one liners.

Huey » 15 May 2014 6:58 am » wrote:
I'll take this non sequitur your surrender on the topic at hand.

As you and your buds continue to fight for less liberty I will stick to my values.

I am sure that you will defend your "values" as they are handed down by neocon websites, son. You were not born being a torture supporter. You didn't pick it up in school or church or the elks club, big government boy.

Your pretense that the purple stains around your mouth are not from koolaid? No one of ANY stripe is buying, kid.

Huey » 15 May 2014 10:21 am » wrote: And the reframe is complete.

I am sure a troll of your stature can find the many,many threads where cannon and I have discussed that issue. But you don't really care. You are just a troll, after all. Ignorant of current events and thread topics but quick with a mediocre one liners.

but able to nail your little droopy followers brain without losing stride.
tell the truth little boy…. you never even thought about the morality of torture until cheney announced that torture was OK, right?

This thread has averaged 984,000 views per day.

Brattle Street » 15 May 2014 11:50 am » wrote: but able to nail your little droopy followers brain without losing stride.
tell the truth little boy…. you never even thought about the morality of torture until cheney announced that torture was OK, right?

They prattle whatever talking points their websites teach them. Earlier we saw one of his bedfellows using the trite routine of "praising with faint damnation" by referring to torture as, "three wet terrorists." Of course, the pretense that this web-site generated phrase covers our nation's entire trip down the torture hole is a lie; the pretense that the primary or only harm done by water-boarding is getting the victim wet is a lie (we executed japs for it); the pretense that there is a magical certainty pill that declares everyone strapped down, beaten, water boarded, sleep deprived, forced into homosexual acts, raped in American rape rooms, etc., etc., etc. - that declares each of these people were ACTUAL TERRORISTS - that was a lie; the pretense that there's a mystical, magical number of people a nation has to torture before it "really" reflects on them ("only" a "few"): THAT is a filthy, neocon talking point lie. But the guy prattling the lies? Oh, he was "against" torture - quite clear in his tisking of it (which preceded his effeminate piffling by less than a breath).

These progressive, big government poseurs want to suck in their guts and puff out their chests and bluff their best Frank Burns manhood impressions, currying favor with the guys in uniform - NEVER questioning ANYTHING done by a soldier. They have a fetish for executive authority and all of its accessories and adornments. But the cheapness of their manhood is manifest in their excuse-making for torture - their need for the nanny state to save them from fear like some helpless bitch tied to the tracks by Snidely Whiplash. It is only in a cartoon bubble reality that persons wishing their words to be seriously contemplated would ever venture to defend state torture - whether by outright endorsement or by the shabby dodge of using borrowed terminology tailored to minimize the crime and belittle the victims - accompanied by falsely pious "tisk-tisks" and, "I don't favor it - buts."

deezer shoove » 15 May 2014 1:11 pm » wrote:This thread has averaged 984,000 views per day.

Romping on the horsey thread, whose author is wont to brag about his view count. Hey, the public has spoken. Twice - louder the second time.