Ron Paul

[Up0n0ne]

Typical right wing ignorance. I hope Obama not only wins, but wipes the floor with whoever the idiot is that is representing the GOP. They are out of touch with reality so much it's ridiculous.

Qualifications for GOP.

Against abortion.
supports "Core" values.
loves Jesus.
Police the world and kill brown people.
Support corporations at the expense of the middle class.

As long as they believe in the first 3, the typical republican voter will allow them to completely destroy everything else they stand for. In this day and age of the internet and common sense, the republicans days are numbered.

LOL! What GOP candidate's are you looking at? RP is the only true Constitutionalist and that IMO should be priority now and always. The rest are neo-cons and will continue to carry out the Globalist NWO plan just like Barry. And they have all proved it by what they have already done.

[Avery'sDad]

.......

Good thing McCain isn't president.

Obama will veto this shit.

LOL! What GOP candidate's are you looking at? RP is the only true Constitutionalist and that IMO should be priority now and always. The rest are neo-cons and will continue to carry out the Globalist NWO plan just like Barry. And they have all proved it by what they have already done.

Agree 100%. The rest of the field can win the nomination but will not have a chance outside of that. I mean cmon, their pick is Newt Gingrich, really? They're going to send in this career politician with to most dirty laundry of the whole bunch to represent the GOP? I'm beginning to think that people are not actually voting for these politicians at first. It's just that Fox news and the like start out by saying these are the candidates ahead of the pack and everyone votes accordingly.

[Snatch Napkin]

Good thing McCain isn't president.

Obama will veto this shit.



Agree 100%. The rest of the field can win the nomination but will not have a chance outside of that. I mean cmon, their pick is Newt Gingrich, really? They're going to send in this career politician with to most dirty laundry of the whole bunch to represent the GOP? I'm beginning to think that people are not actually voting for these politicians at first. It's just that Fox news and the like start out by saying these are the candidates ahead of the pack and everyone votes accordingly.

Fucking DUH!! The media outlets tell the sheople who their choices are and it leaves the rest of us who actually research the candidates to vote for the lesser evil. We've been bitching about that shit since before McCain and Obama went to bat. Which is how that elitist, socialist dickbag got elected. I can factually call him that because I read the books that he wrote, as well as, my experience with him as a President.

"Elections have consequences and at the end of the day I won" ---- Obama

Obama will only veto it if his poll numbers need it. Otherwise, it will stay.

[mikec]

Obama will veto this shit.

That article says that he specifically requested the verbage pertaining to the US citizenry to be added.

You seriously believe he's going to veto what he himself asked for?

[Avery'sDad]

That article says that he specifically requested the verbage pertaining to the US citizenry to be added.

You seriously believe he's going to veto what he himself asked for?

You mean the article from Alex Jones' fear mongering site?

[Up0n0ne]

Agree 100%. The rest of the field can win the nomination but will not have a chance outside of that. I mean cmon, their pick is Newt Gingrich, really? They're going to send in this career politician with to most dirty laundry of the whole bunch to represent the GOP? I'm beginning to think that people are not actually voting for these politicians at first. It's just that Fox news and the like start out by saying these are the candidates ahead of the pack and everyone votes accordingly.

Pretty much.

You mean the article from Alex Jones' fear mongering site?

IMO A.J. isn't a fear mongerer, actually the opposite to me. There's other news sources that actually cover news that matter's and is going to effect this nation. All the mainstream news cover the exact same thing.
Them killing the Posse Comitatus Act, and about to pass the "National Defense Authorization Act and the indefinite detention and torture for American citizens under it should be all over the news. As well as our Constitution and how Wash. is destroying it.
Their job consists of reading what has been written for them and keeping the people believing the false left/right paradigm.

[mikec]

You mean the article from Alex Jones' fear mongering site?

Or any of these other sites that are running the story...

https://www.google.com/search?q=Levin+again+stressed+recently+that+the+bill+applies+to+American+citizens%2C+and+said+that+it+was+president+Obama+who+requested+that+it+do+so.&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Looks like Senator Levin, not Alex Jones, is the one that said it. So, again, do you really think he would veto what he asked for?

[Vertnut]

Typical right wing ignorance. I hope Obama not only wins, but wipes the floor with whoever the idiot is that is representing the GOP. They are out of touch with reality so much it's ridiculous.

Qualifications for GOP.

Against abortion.
supports "Core" values.
loves Jesus.
Police the world and kill brown people.
Support corporations at the expense of the middle class.

As long as they believe in the first 3, the typical republican voter will allow them to completely destroy everything else they stand for. In this day and age of the internet and common sense, the republicans days are numbered.

LOL! You're done. Barry is done. It's time for adults to run this country. I'm shocked Ellis County hasn't run your socialistic ass out of the territory. Red Oak is pretty close to me. We should meet up sometime for coffee.

[Vertnut]

Or any of these other sites that are running the story...

https://www.google.com/search?q=Levin+again+stressed+recently+that+the+bill+applies+to+American+citizens%2C+and+said+that+it+was+president+Obama+who+requested+that+it+do+so.&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Looks like Senator Levin, not Alex Jones, is the one that said it. So, again, do you really think he would veto what he asked for?

A fellow Dem tore Barry a new ass. The rat's are abandoning the ship.

[Vertnut]

The dems in the senate just killed a bill today that would have required a balanced budget. Hell, they can't even come up with a budget to begin with! Know why? Because they are spending us into oblivion. It's got to stop. In order for it to stop, Barry has to go. Don't care how...he has to go.

[Jewrrick]

.”
Another sponsor of the bill – Senator Levin – has also repeatedly said that the bill applies to
American citizens on American soil, citing the Supreme Court case of Hamdi which ruled that
American citizens can be treated as enemy combatants:
“The Supreme Court has recently ruled there is no bar to the United States holding one
of its own citizens as an enemy combatant,” said Levin. “This is the Supreme Court
speaking.“
Levin again stressed recently that the bill applies to American citizens, and that it was
president Obama who requested that it do so.

veto?

[Avery'sDad]

LOL! You're done. Barry is done. It's time for adults to run this country. I'm shocked Ellis County hasn't run your socialistic ass out of the territory. Red Oak is pretty close to me. We should meet up sometime for coffee.

We going to drink it or douse it on each other?

The dems in the senate just killed a bill today that would have required a balanced budget. Hell, they can't even come up with a budget to begin with! Know why? Because they are spending us into oblivion. It's got to stop. In order for it to stop, Barry has to go. Don't care how...he has to go.

The Republicans did the same thing to the other bill. Whats your point?

[Vertnut]

We going to drink it or douse it on each other?



The Republicans did the same thing to the other bill. Whats your point?

My point is that your boys ain't getting it done. They'll be out in a year, so I say lock it down and let them all go home and answer to their constituents.
Which bill did the house kill referring to a budget?

We can drink or douse...doesn't matter to me. I'm game for either...

[mikec]

Which bill did the house kill referring to a budget?

http://gawker.com/5860960/congress-kills-another-balanced-budget-amendment-for-kicks

'This Balanced Budget Amendment, however, was less Republican-y than the previous, also-killed version. While that earlier one set a cap on total government spending at 18% of GDP — nothing like throwing some arbitrary macroeconomic metrics in the Constitution! — and required a 2/3 vote for tax increases, this one had no spending cap and allowed for simple majorities to approve tax increases. These seem like sane changes — "Spending capped at 18% of GDP" isn't exactly the lush, long-view language you find in a constitutional amendment, and if your goal is to balance the budget, then it doesn't make much sense to effectively rule out one of the two ways of achieving that. But conservatives have been griping about these changes, and some very conservative Republicans voted against it. This piece at National Review nicely lays out the conservative thinking on the absolute need for spending caps/impossible tax increases in any BBA:

There is no limitation on taxation or total spending, so the amendment could be enforced by a catastrophic across-the-board tax increase. Instead of spending at 25 percent of GDP, taxing at 15 percent of GDP, and borrowing the rest (as the Obama budgets have done), we could find ourselves both taxing and spending at 25 percent of GDP. Without a strict limitation on taxation and spending, a balanced-budget amendment by itself could do more harm than good.'

[Vertnut]

http://gawker.com/5860960/congress-k...ment-for-kicks

'This Balanced Budget Amendment, however, was less Republican-y than the previous, also-killed version. While that earlier one set a cap on total government spending at 18% of GDP — nothing like throwing some arbitrary macroeconomic metrics in the Constitution! — and required a 2/3 vote for tax increases, this one had no spending cap and allowed for simple majorities to approve tax increases. These seem like sane changes — "Spending capped at 18% of GDP" isn't exactly the lush, long-view language you find in a constitutional amendment, and if your goal is to balance the budget, then it doesn't make much sense to effectively rule out one of the two ways of achieving that. But conservatives have been griping about these changes, and some very conservative Republicans voted against it. This piece at National Review nicely lays out the conservative thinking on the absolute need for spending caps/impossible tax increases in any BBA:

There is no limitation on taxation or total spending, so the amendment could be enforced by a catastrophic across-the-board tax increase. Instead of spending at 25 percent of GDP, taxing at 15 percent of GDP, and borrowing the rest (as the Obama budgets have done), we could find ourselves both taxing and spending at 25 percent of GDP. Without a strict limitation on taxation and spending, a balanced-budget amendment by itself could do more harm than good.'

I was aware of that bill, but I thought it included a tax increase?