Obama and how liberals think

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Tombs

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    12,095
    113
    Martinsville
    Put a different way...if Liberal (in the actual, modern sense - any other definition is irrelevant) and Libertarian are so very similar, as you state - why don't Ron and Rand throw their hats into the Democratic primary and try to change that party from within? Why do they seem to think making that shift from within the Republican party is an easier job?

    I for one would love to see Libertarians making the case for free markets during a Democratic Primary debate. But the fact is, not only would they get laughed off the stage - they would never be allowed anywhere near that stage.

    In fact, if you went to an Occupy protest carrying a Libertarian sign, extolling the virtues of small government and free markets, you would be lucky if they didn't call _you_ the "oppressor."

    I'm not going to get into this stupid, adolescent discussion about lines, spectrums, circles, ideological matrices and graphs. I'm just trying to get you to see that Libertarianism not only has very little in common with actual Liberalism (that is, modern Liberalism, not this historical abstraction you speak of), but is in fact completely opposed to it. There's no shared DNA there. None. Not even a little. The Democrat party makes _no_ room for Libertarian ideals in its platforms. Not a little. Not some. NONE. Zero. No similarity.

    Ron and Rand are conservative republicans, and not libertarians. That's exactly why they are members of the republican party... If you want an actual libertarian, look at Gary Johnson. In case you forgot, the republican party openly attacks any libertarian ideology. It just so happens that some of the conservative voter base will naturally favor a few libertarian principles. Democrats will side with libertarians on social issues, generally, while republicans will side with libertarians on economic issues. It's just the nature of things.

    All the parties have one piece of the pie, but refuse to see past the nose on their face to receive the entire pie. My guess is that it comes down from the politicians who have been lobbied into cognitive dissonance, trying to CYA with their voter base. Then in turn, their voter base starts spewing baseless garbage to support their politician's lobbied stances. Those of us that sit on the sidelines(Independents) scratch our head as we see absolutely ridiculous statements being sold off for votes with people seemingly eating it up. Meanwhile the nation is divided nearly to the point of civil war, between 2 factions entirely obsessed with their football issues and disregard for the law.

    I question what's wrong with the constitution? What's wrong with the bill of rights? Why do these need to be political issues? And when something falls outside of that, did you happen to forget the 9th amendment? Both parties have a long list of inexcusable violations against these documents, to the point of trying to define a difference being like trying to excuse excuse one murderer while sentencing the other to death.
     

    88GT

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 29, 2010
    16,643
    83
    Familyfriendlyville
    Then maybe it's time to stop dwelling on what separates us, and start looking for the things in which we think alike on...
    What separates us is the root of the problem in my mind. Kumbaya-ing the similarities doesn't solve squat.

    Hi, I like guns. Do you like guns? *checkmark*
    Going out on a limb here and assuming that all INGO members like guns. So what? Have you seen how many of them think they should control the possession and carry of others?

    I think we need more emphasis on education. Do you think we need more emphasis on education?
    Great. We agree. Again, so what? I think the emphasis needs to be X. You think the emphasis needs to be Y.

    We have issues because we are split. (Well, we have issues because some people think they have a claim to what is rightfully mine.) I don't care to bean count where we might stand in agreement just because someone in a corporate trust-building event says it's a good idea.
     

    Shadow8088

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 24, 2012
    972
    28
    What separates us is the root of the problem in my mind. Kumbaya-ing the similarities doesn't solve squat.


    Going out on a limb here and assuming that all INGO members like guns. So what? Have you seen how many of them think they should control the possession and carry of others?


    Great. We agree. Again, so what? I think the emphasis needs to be X. You think the emphasis needs to be Y.

    We have issues because we are split. (Well, we have issues because some people think they have a claim to what is rightfully mine.) I don't care to bean count where we might stand in agreement just because someone in a corporate trust-building event says it's a good idea.
    So lets not bother with any of it and keep NOT trying to figure it out.. got it..
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,639
    113
    Gtown-ish
    We have a problem when billionaires like the Koch's take their wealth beyond the scope of buying multiple mansions to influencing politics and hosting meetings with certain members of the Supreme Court and high ranking Republicans who whore themselves out.

    Please don't pretend that that's a "republican" thing. You can't complain about the Koch brothers meddling in politics without including Soros. Also, look at the top donators to political parties and the majority of the top 20 donate to democrats.

    And corporate welfare is not just a republican thing. The only difference is, the complete set of companies that benefit. Of course, GE and the other really big companies are always in both sets.

    I'm just trying to get you to see that Libertarianism not only has very little in common with actual Liberalism (that is, modern Liberalism, not this historical abstraction you speak of), but is in fact completely opposed to it. There's no shared DNA there. None. Not even a little. The Democrat party makes _no_ room for Libertarian ideals in its platforms. Not a little. Not some. NONE. Zero. No similarity.

    Libertarians and Liberals share some common ground in foreign policy. Both oppose Gitmo, "Torture", etc. Rand Paul is trying to out-dove Hillary for cryin out loud. Also, socially, libertarians agree with liberals about gay marriage, reproductive freedom, and so on, though they disagree on government involvement. But overall I agree that libertarian conservatives find more common ground in the Republican Party than with Democrats.


    If Ron Paul felt he was closer to the Republican Party platform, don't you think he would have endorsed McCain instead of Nader or McKinney??

    You have a point. Ron's a little crazy though.

    Abortion and Keynesian economic policies I would guess.

    That doesn't mean liberals and libertarians don't share some common ideals that neocons and neoliberals crap on every chance they get.

    There's a lot more that liberals and libertarians disagree on than Keynesian economics and abortion. Ask a libertarian his or her definition of "social justice". Compare that to the average liberal. You're not likely to find "income equality" anywhere in the libertarian definition. Also, libertarians tend to be more individualist while liberals are more collectivist. I'd say when it comes to the role of government, individualism, and economics, libertarians have more in common with conservatives. When it comes to many social issues, civil rights, and foreign policy, they probably have more in common with liberals.

    Ron and Rand are conservative republicans, and not libertarians. That's exactly why they are members of the republican party... If you want an actual libertarian, look at Gary Johnson. In case you forgot, the republican party openly attacks any libertarian ideology. It just so happens that some of the conservative voter base will naturally favor a few libertarian principles. Democrats will side with libertarians on social issues, generally, while republicans will side with libertarians on economic issues. It's just the nature of things.

    All the parties have one piece of the pie, but refuse to see past the nose on their face to receive the entire pie. My guess is that it comes down from the politicians who have been lobbied into cognitive dissonance, trying to CYA with their voter base. Then in turn, their voter base starts spewing baseless garbage to support their politician's lobbied stances. Those of us that sit on the sidelines(Independents) scratch our head as we see absolutely ridiculous statements being sold off for votes with people seemingly eating it up. Meanwhile the nation is divided nearly to the point of civil war, between 2 factions entirely obsessed with their football issues and disregard for the law.

    I question what's wrong with the constitution? What's wrong with the bill of rights? Why do these need to be political issues? And when something falls outside of that, did you happen to forget the 9th amendment? Both parties have a long list of inexcusable violations against these documents, to the point of trying to define a difference being like trying to excuse excuse one murderer while sentencing the other to death.

    Ron and Rand are libertarian conservatives. Conservative republicans want to bomb the **** out of the middle east and turn it to glass. Conservative republicans want to ban gay marriage. Conservative republicans mostly don't mind a little church in their politics as long as politics stay out of church. Ron and Rand, as far as I can see, oppose all that.

    Everything else, I agree with.
     

    IndyDave1776

    Grandmaster
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Jan 12, 2012
    27,286
    113
    So lets not bother with any of it and keep NOT trying to figure it out.. got it..

    It isn't an issue of not figuring anything out, but rather recognizing that we are politically too far away from the other side for the scant little commonality available to be useful as anything but a bit of trivia. I could work on that gap if the left were able to give up trying to control my money, my family, what I choose to eat, my decisions regarding my own health care, and my supposedly free exercise of constitutional rights, and stop government usurpation of authority that it does not have. Now, do you honestly see any part of this reasonable minimum standard being met?
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,639
    113
    Gtown-ish
    What separates us is the root of the problem in my mind. Kumbaya-ing the similarities doesn't solve squat.


    Going out on a limb here and assuming that all INGO members like guns. So what? Have you seen how many of them think they should control the possession and carry of others?


    Great. We agree. Again, so what? I think the emphasis needs to be X. You think the emphasis needs to be Y.

    We have issues because we are split. (Well, we have issues because some people think they have a claim to what is rightfully mine.) I don't care to bean count where we might stand in agreement just because someone in a corporate trust-building event says it's a good idea.

    It's pointless to find similarities in concepts we agree on when the resulting policies would be very different. For example, the comment that you both agree on, that we need more emphasis on education: what you would want to do about that and what Shadow would want to do about that, I'm fairly certain would be quite different. Unless we agree on actual policy, other agreements are merely coincidental.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,639
    113
    Gtown-ish
    So lets not bother with any of it and keep NOT trying to figure it out.. got it..

    Do you want less government, less regulation, free markets, ending welfare, foodstamps, lowering taxes, reducing spending, ending affirmative action. The point is, we may agree on what the problems are, but we have very different ideas about how to solve them. Find some common ground on policy and I'll listen. Tell me the answer to "income inequality" is raising minimum wage and I'll tell you no ****ing way.
     

    Shadow8088

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 24, 2012
    972
    28
    Do you want less government, less regulation, free markets, ending welfare, foodstamps, lowering taxes, reducing spending, ending affirmative action. The point is, we may agree on what the problems are, but we have very different ideas about how to solve them. Find some common ground on policy and I'll listen. Tell me the answer to "income inequality" is raising minimum wage and I'll tell you no ****ing way.
    actually.. raising minimum wage just raises the price of everything in the long run... there are some merits to raising it in an attempt to make some wages liveable... but under no circumstances do I believe that fast food workers should be getting $15/hr...

    ending affirmative action i would definitely be on board with... people getting into college because of their merits and not to fill an ethnic background quota? sure, where do I sign that petition (although making it possible for kids from "inner city schools"/poor schools to get an education CAPABLE of getting them into college is a discussion we should absolutely be having)

    Welfare and foodstamps, we're never going to agree on... They're a safety net to attempt to make sure we don't have people starving to death (which we have anyway) and people freezing to death (also still happens) when they cannot find means to feed/clothe themselves... it's abused, no question about it, but you'll never get me to agree that it should be done away with.

    Taxes... I'm actually perfectly fine with where my taxes are... they pay for my roads, keep my power going, educate kids, pay our soldiers, help preserve our way of life, etc... Closing a few of the "loopholes" and DRASTICALLY rewriting tax law into something manageable and easy for anyone to understand? sure thing... I'd sign that petition as well..

    Reducing spending? Absolutely. But I'm pretty sure where we'd cut the spending would come from drastically different places...

    Less government? I think we'd actually have to define what each of our versions of that would be.. Ask 100 people what their version is, and you'll get 100 different answers.. We hear republicans call for smaller government, yet they do everything in their power to make it bigger anyways...

    as for regulation and free market? You're living in a fool's paradise... Without regulation, the corporations would be in control of everything already. Hell, they're doing everything in their power to get the control anyways, and doing a great job of it too. Regulation of some sort is required to at least give the illusion of checks and balances..

    Am I going to get flamed for my POV? probably... but I don't think for an instant that I fit completely under the "Liberal" blanket... especially when it comes to the 2A... but we weren't talking about that at this time.
     

    ModernGunner

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 29, 2010
    4,749
    63
    NWI
    It's 'ironic' when Liberals constantly and consistently mention the 'evil' Koch Brothers, yet just as consistently refuse to bring up the Billionaires in the leftys' court: Soros, Bloomberg, Buffet, Gates, Jobs, Steyer, etc.

    It's 'ironic' that Liberal celebrities (like Michael Moore) condemn 'evil, rich Republicans' while consistently failing or refusing to mention their own multimillion dollar wealth.

    It's 'ironic' when Hillary whined about being 'broke' when 'Billary' are actually rich.

    It's 'ironic' when the Liar-In-Chief mentions the 'evil' millionaires when he, himself, is a multimillionaire.

    It's 'ironic' when the Liar-In-Chief condemns the 'evil' rich while the majority of media moguls, everyone rich in their own right, drool over and attempt to 'defend' his every action, whether legal, questionable, or illegal.

    It's 'ironic' how repeatedly the Liberals 'condemn' the wealthy, when the vast campaign funds raised for their relentless campaign assaults are by and large paid for through large campaign contributions, not 'nickels & dimes donated by the poor'.

    It's 'ironic' how loudly and vociferously Liberals proclaim they're "NOT Socialists!" (or Communists), yet just as loudly and vociferously advocate those very ideals.

    It's 'ironic' how frequently Liberals 'scream' about "income inequality" yet just as frequently do not insist on productive work from those who receive a significant income (up to $34,000 / yr., IIRC) for doing absolutely nothing when capable of working.

    It's 'ironic' how frequently Liberals demand 'charity' from the working taxpayer, yet donate LESS to charity than Conservative, Libertarian, or other such 'groups'.

    It's 'ironic' how loudly Liberals demand free money from the American taxpayer for (essentially Democrat) voters, yet also demand NO accountability from those voters, and even more loudly fight against any institution of oversight of those voters receiving that assistance.

    It's 'ironic' how Liberals demanded 'equal loans and housing' for (essentially Democrat) voters, a plan which had no other possibility than failure, then blamed the lenders when the borrower failed to repay the mortgage, "because the lender shouldn't have made the loan" the Liberals demanded be made.

    It's 'ironic' the Liberals demanded charity without condition from the charitable organizations, then demanded strict oversight and investigation of the charitable organizations while NOT demanding oversight and investigation of those receiving that charity.

    It's 'ironic' when Liberals demand 'income equality' and a higher minimum wage while condemning an inflation-adjusted (over the past 40 years) minimum wage of $15 / hr. because "it would raise prices too high on stuff" THEY want to purchase.

    There are many, many other examples to be made, if only there were space on INGO for pages-long iterations.
     
    Last edited:

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,639
    113
    Gtown-ish
    actually.. raising minimum wage just raises the price of everything in the long run... there are some merits to raising it in an attempt to make some wages liveable... but under no circumstances do I believe that fast food workers should be getting $15/hr...

    ending affirmative action i would definitely be on board with... people getting into college because of their merits and not to fill an ethnic background quota? sure, where do I sign that petition (although making it possible for kids from "inner city schools"/poor schools to get an education CAPABLE of getting them into college is a discussion we should absolutely be having)

    Welfare and foodstamps, we're never going to agree on... They're a safety net to attempt to make sure we don't have people starving to death (which we have anyway) and people freezing to death (also still happens) when they cannot find means to feed/clothe themselves... it's abused, no question about it, but you'll never get me to agree that it should be done away with.

    Taxes... I'm actually perfectly fine with where my taxes are... they pay for my roads, keep my power going, educate kids, pay our soldiers, help preserve our way of life, etc... Closing a few of the "loopholes" and DRASTICALLY rewriting tax law into something manageable and easy for anyone to understand? sure thing... I'd sign that petition as well..

    Reducing spending? Absolutely. But I'm pretty sure where we'd cut the spending would come from drastically different places...

    Less government? I think we'd actually have to define what each of our versions of that would be.. Ask 100 people what their version is, and you'll get 100 different answers.. We hear republicans call for smaller government, yet they do everything in their power to make it bigger anyways...

    as for regulation and free market? You're living in a fool's paradise... Without regulation, the corporations would be in control of everything already. Hell, they're doing everything in their power to get the control anyways, and doing a great job of it too. Regulation of some sort is required to at least give the illusion of checks and balances..

    Am I going to get flamed for my POV? probably... but I don't think for an instant that I fit completely under the "Liberal" blanket... especially when it comes to the 2A... but we weren't talking about that at this time.

    I'm not going to flame you for having a different POV. In a different context I might vigorously debate those points with you. But it illustrates my point that unless we agree on solutions, we haven't much in common. And it looks like we might agree on a few solutions. But that's just two of us. Add in hundreds of millions of other opinions and not so much agreement.

    But what I absolutely hate is when one group tries to marginalize and divide the country against the other. Obama has been a master divider. From his first remarks about "bitter clingers" I could see where he was going. That pissed me off and I'm not even religious.
     

    MisterChester

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 25, 2013
    3,383
    48
    The Compound
    Do you want less government, less regulation, free markets, ending welfare, foodstamps, lowering taxes, reducing spending, ending affirmative action. The point is, we may agree on what the problems are, but we have very different ideas about how to solve them. Find some common ground on policy and I'll listen. Tell me the answer to "income inequality" is raising minimum wage and I'll tell you no ****ing way.

    If only the people that represented us thought like that. Imagine all the work that would get done! Truth is nobody there really cares about common ground enough to actually sit down and discuss it. There are a number of them (on both sides) that flat out refuse to accept anything that is not 100% okay in their eyes. This "my way or the highway" mindset gets us nowhere fast. And that's IF you can get them to the table. Seems like these days that both sides of the aisle see problems the other side is either oblivious to or truly doesn't think there is a problem to begin with. That right there is what I think is the real killer, one side sees a problem and the other doesn't for whatever reason on many issues.
     

    Tombs

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    12,095
    113
    Martinsville
    actually.. raising minimum wage just raises the price of everything in the long run... there are some merits to raising it in an attempt to make some wages liveable... but under no circumstances do I believe that fast food workers should be getting $15/hr...

    ending affirmative action i would definitely be on board with... people getting into college because of their merits and not to fill an ethnic background quota? sure, where do I sign that petition (although making it possible for kids from "inner city schools"/poor schools to get an education CAPABLE of getting them into college is a discussion we should absolutely be having)

    Welfare and foodstamps, we're never going to agree on... They're a safety net to attempt to make sure we don't have people starving to death (which we have anyway) and people freezing to death (also still happens) when they cannot find means to feed/clothe themselves... it's abused, no question about it, but you'll never get me to agree that it should be done away with.

    Taxes... I'm actually perfectly fine with where my taxes are... they pay for my roads, keep my power going, educate kids, pay our soldiers, help preserve our way of life, etc... Closing a few of the "loopholes" and DRASTICALLY rewriting tax law into something manageable and easy for anyone to understand? sure thing... I'd sign that petition as well..

    Reducing spending? Absolutely. But I'm pretty sure where we'd cut the spending would come from drastically different places...

    Less government? I think we'd actually have to define what each of our versions of that would be.. Ask 100 people what their version is, and you'll get 100 different answers.. We hear republicans call for smaller government, yet they do everything in their power to make it bigger anyways...

    as for regulation and free market? You're living in a fool's paradise... Without regulation, the corporations would be in control of everything already. Hell, they're doing everything in their power to get the control anyways, and doing a great job of it too. Regulation of some sort is required to at least give the illusion of checks and balances..

    Am I going to get flamed for my POV? probably... but I don't think for an instant that I fit completely under the "Liberal" blanket... especially when it comes to the 2A... but we weren't talking about that at this time.

    I disagree that raising minimum wage only results in it being totally offset by the cost of living increasing. I don't generally see it working that way, I generally see raising minimum wage result in less job opportunities, or layoffs. I believe minimum wage should be tied to inflation so that it can never become a political issue again. In a perfect world we wouldn't need it, but for the time being, we actually do.

    Everything else I'd pretty much agree with... But saying corporations could have more control over government seems impossible, when they constantly lobby to play favorites and get specific tax exemptions for themselves. Can't tell me military contractors don't run the show overseas, why else would we even be fighting over there if not to find a way to launder money into their pockets, and generate further un-rest to secure their financial futures. I believe regulation is WHY they've gained the power they hold, as it taught them not to work hard to build a better company, but to go after politicians seeking benefits that make them impossible to compete with. And should all that fail, just move overseas. That could be cured in a big hurry by denying them the ability to import goods if they decide they don't want to work inside our regulations, but you'll never see such a regulation made.

    If I could ever add an amendment to the constitution, I'd ban any sort of corporate lobbying or corporate donations to any politician or political party. If they want money, they can work for it. Maybe they might gain some respect for the law when they're not bribed into trampling it every single day.
     

    Birds Away

    ex CZ afficionado.
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    18   0   0
    Aug 29, 2011
    76,248
    113
    Monticello
    If you think legalizing 11 million illegal workers will somehow solve the unemployment and under-employment problem than how on earth can we find common ground?
     

    MisterChester

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 25, 2013
    3,383
    48
    The Compound
    I disagree that raising minimum wage only results in it being totally offset by the cost of living increasing. I don't generally see it working that way, I generally see raising minimum wage result in less job opportunities, or layoffs. I believe minimum wage should be tied to inflation so that it can never become a political issue again. In a perfect world we wouldn't need it, but for the time being, we actually do.

    Everything else I'd pretty much agree with... But saying corporations could have more control over government seems impossible, when they constantly lobby to play favorites and get specific tax exemptions for themselves. Can't tell me military contractors don't run the show overseas, why else would we even be fighting over there if not to find a way to launder money into their pockets, and generate further un-rest to secure their financial futures. I believe regulation is WHY they've gained the power they hold, as it taught them not to work hard to build a better company, but to go after politicians seeking benefits that make them impossible to compete with. And should all that fail, just move overseas. That could be cured in a big hurry by denying them the ability to import goods if they decide they don't want to work inside our regulations, but you'll never see such a regulation made.

    If I could ever add an amendment to the constitution, I'd ban any sort of corporate lobbying or corporate donations to any politician or political party. If they want money, they can work for it. Maybe they might gain some respect for the law when they're not bribed into trampling it every single day.

    you savage Marxist.

    Only problem I see with pegging MW to inflation is that it would cause inflation to rise, unless it was raised slowly and incrementally over time to get to that point. It also has potential to drive Mw down if the dollar should regain more value, but I don't see it happening. Everything else you said I pretty much agree with. Our system of crony capitalism hurts a lot more than it helps.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,639
    113
    Gtown-ish
    If only the people that represented us thought like that. Imagine all the work that would get done! Truth is nobody there really cares about common ground enough to actually sit down and discuss it. There are a number of them (on both sides) that flat out refuse to accept anything that is not 100% okay in their eyes. This "my way or the highway" mindset gets us nowhere fast. And that's IF you can get them to the table. Seems like these days that both sides of the aisle see problems the other side is either oblivious to or truly doesn't think there is a problem to begin with. That right there is what I think is the real killer, one side sees a problem and the other doesn't for whatever reason on many issues.

    What makes me frustrated is when partisans disagree just because they're on different sides. Even on areas where they might be close to agreeing, they still pull the partisan crap. That said, though I do want them to work together, but I do not want them to compromise if it means we lose ground.

    ... raising minimum wage ...

    See the numerous "minimum wage" threads for the obvious rebuttals.

    If I could ever add an amendment to the constitution, I'd ban any sort of corporate lobbying or corporate donations to any politician or political party. If they want money, they can work for it. Maybe they might gain some respect for the law when they're not bribed into trampling it every single day.

    This is one area where I sort of agree. I think the idea of corporate personhood is a sham.


    you savage Marxist.


    Pretty much. :)
     

    indiucky

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    So lets not bother with any of it and keep NOT trying to figure it out.. got it..

    YES!!!!! You got it.....

    Oh and corporations are evil...Well except for the Corporation of Public Broadcasting...

    Billionaires who invest in candidates are evil...Well if they are from Middle America and named "Koch" they are evil...However, Soros, Buffett, Bloomberg, and Gates are GOOD Billionaires because they support banning guns, men marrying men and killing babies so they are cool....Got it...

    Conservative wealthy person donating to causes they believe in- Evil Lobbyists...
    Liberal wealthy people donating to liberal causes- Activists for Social justice...

    Got it...mmkay?
     
    Top Bottom