Conservative says: "It is really easy to demonstrate why it is impossible to be a Liberal and a Christian."
I'd say most liberal Christians would suggest you spend more time reading the New Testament rather than the Old Testament, Conservative. . . A little something to get you started:
"All mankind will see God's salvation." John the Baptist, Luke 3:6
"When I am lifted up, I will draw all men to myself." Jesus, John 12:32
Conservative says: "It is IMPOSSIBLE to be a Liberal and a Christian!"
Who says? Clearly, you're not God and you're not a liberal. . . And your caricature of Christians is so poor that I strongly suspect you don't even belong to any respected denomination based on the teachings of Jesus. . . a group serving the "snake" is more likely.
Dude_Abides notes: “The conservative elite will beat us to it. They'll change the Red Planet to another barely populated Red State! They'll have 4 wheel hill climbs on Olympus Mons. They'll legislate against us Earthians immigrating there, as well.”
Rats! You get my hopes up just to crush them a few hours later. (Sigh) . . . Oh well, I suppose we could put an ad in the international personals. . . Something like:
DESPARATELY SEEKING SANE NATION: Good law-abiding citizens willing to pay taxes seek sane democratic nation with sane leaders. Nation must promote sanity and general welfare of the citizenry; work to secure justice, domestic tranquility, and blessings of liberty; ensure freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition. Oligarchs, warmongering neo-cons, NRA gunslingers, and sneaky big brother types need not apply.
Dude_abide says: "I would say Peru, but I keep seeing them in what look like fedoras. That can't be good. It'll take the Swiss a generation to get over maximus' visit, so that's a no go. Scandinavia seemed sane, until Breivik. I may apply for the Mars one way trip."
Good thinking. . . I should have thought of this. . . The moon is closer, of course, but America has already landed there and there’re probably armed colonies, which is a no-go. . . But America hasn’t been to Mars, which means there’s still potential. . . It might very well be a perfect site for a sane new world. . . Lets hope the tickets are affordable.
Dude_abides asks: "mountainlaurel... is that a gun in your pocket, or are you just glad to shoot me?"
No, it’s just my passport and a few other things. . . I’m looking for a sane place to go. . . Some place where America hasn’t armed yet. . . Any suggestions?
Yikes!. . . When and where does it all end? . . . One day it’s America arming rebels in foreign lands. . . Another day it’s America arming teachers in our schools. . . Tomorrow it’ll probably be America arming students so they can protect themselves against teachers. . . The next day it’ll be America arming school crossing guards, playground supervisors, school janitors and cafeteria workers so they can protect themselves against students. . . On and on and on. (sigh)
Jt6gR3hM said: "If what you say is true then the 501 (c) 4 organizations would not exist. As long as you do not coordinate your activities with a candidate you can spend unlimited amounts for independent campaign activity."
Which brings us right back to the issue in the cartoon. The 501 (c) 4 was not set up to be a front for political slush funds. Currently, it is being blatantly abuse by political groups and corporations in an effort to conceal their campaign contributions from the public.
And as I said earlier, I find it odd these Tea Party folks haven’t uttered a peep about the blatant abuse of the 501 (c) 4 status. It seems to me if one is concerned about the wrongs that can occur within big government, one should be equally concerned about the wrongs that can occur within big corporations. In this case, it would be these big corporate lobbyists and operatives who are setting up these illegal political slush funds to conceal money in political campaigns.
"Since the Citizens United decision, 501(c)(4) groups, have operated as Super PACs—raising and spending tens of millions in corporate funds—without disclosing a dime of their contributors. IRS rules state that the primary activity of such groups cannot relate to political advocacy, yet examples abound of 501(c)(4) groups spending well over 50 percent of their funds on attack ads, political action committees and other clearly political expenses. These potential violations of the law have gone on for several years now, with very little interest from the Beltway media or Capitol Hill Republicans, many of whom owe their election to spending by bogus 501(c)(4) organizations."
Read more: Five 501(c)(4) Groups That Might Have Broken the Law | The Nation http://www.thenation.com/blog/174458/five-501c4-groups-might-have-broken-law#ixzz2WNpT7eIo
Jt6gR3hM said: "The expenditure of your own resources to influence elections is considered, by the SCOTUS, to be expression but of course no right is absolute without "reasonable" regulation."
Why can’t you just admit it and say it in a straightforward manner, Jt6? The Supreme Court upheld the requirements for disclaimers and disclosures. Even the right wingers on the Supreme Court recognized the impact that unlimited corporate contributions could have on elections and the need of the public to discuss and take all of the outrageous campaign spending into account when voting. . . In other words, no big secret contributions.
Fairmon says: "ml post from her fav publication the NYT."
How does this pertain to the discussion about votes, disclosures, and political contributions, Fairmon? It seems to me your NYT's article is addressing a totally different issue.
Patriot1 says: "Please tell me more about how everyone is ENTITLED to vote."
Since you the original discussion that I was having with Jt6 was about votes, disclosure, and campaign contributions, I believe you’re being disingenuous here, Patriot1. If you had read Jt6's post you would have noted that he was arguing that "votes" and "campaigns contributions" were essentially equivalent and should be treated the same in regard to disclosure. I was simply pointing out to him the difference between the two and why his argument didn't fly.