| Author | Message | ||
     Whatever |
Police and firefighter unions= good. Teacher and sanitation worker unions= bad. According to Walker's actions. | ||
| Fb1 |
Freely have at the BO bashing. Thank you. The following was written by Thomas Sowell (a black man, for anyone keeping score). Emphasis mine.
[Source: http://patriotpost.us/opinion/thomas-sowell/2012/0 3/01/super-tuesday/] | ||
| Whatever |
Sorry for the hijack... I am done for now...  | ||
| Sarodude |
No hardassery taken.  If we're stepping back from the PDF question... There are no computers, no electronics, etc..... I have no compelling reasons to believe that Obama is not who he says he is. I have no compelling reason to doubt the existence of his HI birth cert. I'm going to take a bit of a circuitous route here, so bear with me. A somewhat prominent friend of mine is firmly entrenched in the Progressive movement. She's published, served in local government, and has a couple of radio shows. She was trying to espouse the benefits of vegetarianism. Health benefits. Less harm to the environment due to reduced methane emissions from cattle farts (seriously). A number of things I can't recall now. But the heart of the matter was that she was simply an animal lover. Nothing wrong there. But the real issue is that she simply wants us to stop eating animals and less so that we'll be (allegedly) healthier, etc. And yes, she is a very healthy veggie. On the opposite side of the spectrum is an in-law. A devout LDS member. When California's Prop 8 was making the rounds, he would gladly explain to you how gay marriage was going to cost us money (please let's not get into that). I can't recall the bulk of his other reasons. I simply know that there was one and only one reason that gay marriage should not be legal in his heart & mind. That reason was that, in his beliefs system, homosexuality is essentially an abominable, god (sorry for the lowercase g) hating choice that will spread like wildfire. And that's his belief to have. It was a moral issue but the talking points were becoming distinctly non moral. Thing is that we can get ourselves to start spewing anything we hear to further a cause we believe in - even if these things are not primary to our association with this cause. The left was doing this in the GWB era. I can't tell you how many alleged "experts" were talking about, for example, doctored pentagon footage. Or about metallurgical stuff. But they just didn't want to hear that, regardless of how evil they thought GWB was, these super weak points were just emotionally driven pseudo intellectual arguments. The right is doing this in the BHO era. Eye for an eye? Sure, fine. Go for it. I just can't board that train. I HATED GWB but fought the BS. I'm barely lukewarm on BHO. You expect me to not resist what seems like the same thing? I've fought for things that others did not see. I was ridiculed for my beliefs. In the end, I stopped yapping and put my dollars where my convictions lay. I was right & am better for it now. If you see something I do not, that's good for you. Act on it to the best of your own benefit. When the world doesn't listen, the best thing you can do is position yourself to take advantage of their poor decision making. So, here's your chance. Act with your dollars and your lives. Court says already has. To me, what we have going here in the bigger picture is some crazy oscillation. We're chasing the situation and are continually overcorrecting. Essentially, each time the pendulum swings, it somehow is swinging farther. Stop swinging the pendulum and start bringing some calm rationale into the picture. "President Zero is a Manturian Candidate" is probably not the force that will help stabilize the pendulum. -Saro | ||
| Sifo |
What I do not understand is the absolute trying to squash public process that Walker and his cronies are hell bent on promoting as patriotism. Now that's funny. The WI representatives ran from their state (stayed in hiding in MY state BTW!) to try to squash the public process. Failing that, they with union help used the same tactics that we saw in the occupy protests, when they occupied the capitol building to squash the public process. You supported that then, but now claim to dislike OWS tactics. You may disagree with Walker, but he is doing what he campaigned on and was elected to do. He still seems to have a great deal of support from the electorate in WI. Any politician these days with a 47% approval rating is doing something right. Especially a Republican in a blue state. | ||
| Fb1 |
No hardassery taken. Cool. I have no compelling reasons to believe that Obama is not who he says he is. I have no compelling reason to doubt the existence of his HI birth cert. Is the fact that after four years he STILL hasn't produced the real thing compelling enough? They (Hawaii) says it exists. Why can't you or I see it? Also, I find it interesting that so many of the folks who dislike the Obama "bashing" seem to revert to the, "Yeah, but just look at what Bush did, or Clinton did, or so and so did." True enough, but it isn't relevant here. Mr. Obama is in charge now, and he's the focus of attention. What the others did, by and large, is, in fact, old news and there's not much anyone can do about. What we CAN do something about, or at least talk about, is our current President. It's not "bad" that we talk about him, nor is it "bad" that some of us talk about him critically. It's one of our rights, and the Founders desired and encouraged criticism of our government. So, let me take a run at you from another direction: 1) Mr. Obama is trampling the Constitution. Agree, or disagree? 2) If you agree, then do you dislike ALL the rules spelled out in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, or just SOME of them? 3) If you disagree, how do you "justify," from a constitutional perspective, President Obama signing the NDAA into law the, which allows, in part, him (and any future President) to order military detention without charge or trial for the first time in American history? Best, FB | ||
| Sifo |
BTW, the link of SEIU, OWS and Scott Walker protests is clear. http://www.wnpj.org/node/5587 http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/05/secretive-nation wide-network-gives-seiu-new-organizing-muscle/#ixz z1oFhSEHG4 Same organizers, same tactics. How do you explain being in favor of the tactics in WI but not liking them in OWS? It must not translate to a resident of IL. So does anyone actually believe the PDF of the birth certificate is real? | ||
| Whatever |
Wow. I don't think I said that what the Democrats did was right in that situation. If you can find specifically where I said that you can e-mail me the link. However, the Dems did not ram through exclusionary legislature (Voter ID, discrimination, equal pay, environmental deregulation, take your pick) So I do see them as the lesser of two evils. Really, I am done hijacking this thread. Start a new one on Walker if that is what you want to discuss. I still do not think WI has anything to do with the OP. | ||
| Sifo |
I still do not think WI has anything to do with the OP. That's because it has to do with a subject that you brought up. | ||
| Whatever |
Whatever... Start a new thread if you want to discuss unions, OWS or Wisconsin. Or my vagina.  | ||
| Sarodude |
Excellent point.
So at the risk of resembling a smelly sphincter and point back to the previous president, perhaps the acceptance (?) of "trampling" the constitution is just based on precedent. Forgive me if there's an order of magnitude difference, but wasn't there similar sentiment over the Patriot Act? This is one case where maybe it's not an issue of "Well look at what Georgie boy did" but more like "If Bush signed this in and didn't appear to abuse it, perhaps Obama can as well." Look. I may be making your point here, but... There are portions of the government overseen by an organization known as the National Futures Association. They regulate the part of the commodities futures industry (along with their parent organization the CFTC). In their efforts to beat down dirty commodities firms, they have some rules that seem to defy the constitution. Specifically, they can "taint" a firm based on its practices. When the firm gets tainted, all its brokers get tainted. And past brokers too. So, you worked at firm x in 2001, left in 2003, and in 2007, firm x became tainted, YOU became tainted. Got it? So, in order to stay within regulations, a firm has a limit to the number of tainted brokers it can employ before falling victim to something known as Rule 2-9. At least in California, 2-9 is a death sentence for a brokerage. Some little law about phone calls being illegal to tape unless BOTH parties are aware. Just understand here that we're blatantly endorsing guilt by association in this system and forcing firms to possibly perform ethically and legally questionable telemarketing tactics. My family and I have fallen prey to these ridiculous rules. But they're there for the perceived benefit of the masses. So be it. One of the few clean and ethical commodities firms is out of business due to a chain of events relating to these rules. I've already seen the government work against me. 1) So, do I agree that the constitution is being violated? I suppose I do. 2) I probably don't dislike any of them. However, just as with the Patriot Act, we can either believe that the guy pulling these stunts is evil and will subvert all rational forms of government or that he's just looking for a way to deal with exceptional situations. If I understand correctly, it takes a specific presidential order to deny a specific individual this due process. As I already noted, my family's financial future was dramatically impacted by some insane a-holes (well, one in particular) who are out of reach of investigation without very deep pockets. But I understand that the intent of these rules is to protect the naive old lady with a recent life insurance settlement from the vultures. So, I guess it comes down to whether or not you believe Obama is evil. I don't. -Saro | ||
| Fb1 |
1) So, do I agree that the constitution is being violated? I suppose I do. Courageous thing to say; thank you. With all due respect, the other stuff you mention is noise as the issue pertains to the President. You're saying that there are other folks in the government who are (or have been in the past) unethical, too. I agree 100%. The issue at hand is whether or not Mr. Obama is an American citizen. It has nothing to do with the behavior of anyone else who has ever served in a political office in America, and has everything to do with Mr. Obama. It'd be so easy for him to prove he's an American citizen. The document available for viewing online hasn't proven anything, only raised additional questions and concerns. So, considering that the original paper document is said to exist, why - four years and several million dollars later - is Mr. Obama STILL unwilling to let us actually see it? Makes ya wonder, doesn't it? It's not enough that accept their word for it. That's not how America was designed to work. It's well within our rights as American citizens to see the proof. In fact, it's our duty to demand such. Mr. Obama is trampling the Constitution; facts are facts. The issue of whether others in his position did or did not similarly subvert the Constitution is important, but not as important as what our CURRENT President is doing. If I understand correctly, it takes a specific presidential order to deny a specific individual this due process. Saro, my God, man! Re-read what you said! Where in the Constitution does it say the President is allowed to deny an individual due process? For the very first time in American history, a President can now deny an American citizen due process, for whatever reason he so chooses! This is HUGE!!!!!! AND................if the President can disregard one aspect of the Constitution, the President can, eventually, disregard ALL aspects of the Constitution! Saro, man, I know you, I respect you. Please, please, please give some serious thought to the dangers inherent in what you just said. FB | ||
| Fb1 |
This is what the Sixth Amendment says:
As of December 31st, 2011, with the stroke of a pen, the sixth amendment is null and void. The President is now the King. God help us all. | ||
| Hootowl |
"Makes ya wonder, doesn't it?" Not at all. The controversy will not be put to bed by president Obama authorizing the release of the original document because the 'birthers' making the news every few months ups his poll numbers. It's a brilliant strategy. Makes you wonder whether Hillary was doing a double-fake when she brought it up in the primary. | ||
| Reepicheep |
I'll go on record as saying that I was "vaguely uneasy" with some of the things Bush did post 9/11 at the time. I now, with age, wisdom, and the value of hindsight, have gone from "vaguely uneasy" to "I think some were flat out wrong". I reserve the right to get smarter. I would advise Obama supporters that are OK with the "if congress doesn't act, I will" philosophy, or the "we aren't looking to the constitution to answer that question" to learn from my mistakes. Take issue X that you are happy to see forced through, and think about if it was issue Y, and instead of President Obama it was President Palin, and see if you still think "the ends justify the means". The way these things were handled in WWII was wprse. As we occupied Germany, we would occupy a new town, some poor Sergeant would be told to go interview the people in town and find out who the SS collaborator was, and they would take the guy out in a field in a jeep and tell him to start walking, and shoot him in the back of the head. That was the problem Guantanamo "solved"... (Message edited by reepicheep on March 05, 2012) | ||
| Sarodude |
Depends on your perspective. GWB was allowed to waive some magic wands. Among them were hellatiously costly, brutally underestimated, mismanaged military campaigns which the administration essentially lied to make happen. And the costs? We are complaining about tax and spend democrats? Also, the aforementioned Patriot Act (which BHO extended). Why were we ok with that series of abuses / mistakes / decisions (depending on your view)?
This comes down to, once again, whether or not you believe Obama has some long term communist / totalitarianist / guytwirlingmassivemoustacheist agenda. What are his motives? Is the plan really to crap on the constitution and wipe with the bill of rights? Did we assign that right to just anyone? Any cop? Do we really think that BHO will absolutely abuse this power? Did GWB abuse the Patriot Act? Or, perhaps like the Patriot Act, was this something intended to deal with situations outside of something the framers of the Constitution did not anticipate? Who here was negatively impacted as a result of Patriot Act wiretaps? Anyone? Hello? I don't know anyone. And I was born in Tehran, Iran. And I know LOTS AND LOTS of people from less friendly nations, and not one of them ever was impacted by that Act. No joke - I knew TWO - not one, but TWO business partners whose first names were Jihad. They ran a little cafe. The suits never dropped in on them. My point isn't any of these specific things. My point is that there is disproportionate hate and paranoia being directed towards this guy. Do I like this? The compromises made in the face of the Constitution? The Bill of Rights? No. Do I think these things are being used against the average, law abiding citizen? No. Do I think "Obama is a Manchurian Candidate" of any sort" No. I would just like us all to calm the eff down and direct meaningful, original, internal commentary at these topics instead of regurgitating what our particular brand of media or friends just told us. -Saro | ||
| Hootowl |
"which the administration essentially lied to make happen." Ah, that old chestnut. Wasn't true then, isn't true now, no matter how badly you want it to be so. | ||
| Aesquire |
I love my vagina and you should too. Is it ok if I just respect it from afar, for now? I don't know you all that well. We can talk, over soft drinks or coffee?  Glad you love it, I think they are wonderful. ( and, what you do with it is your own damn business. Until you ask me to pay for it without negotiations first. Moral and legal issues there. ) ...'birthers' making the news every few months ups his poll numbers. It's a brilliant strategy. That has a very high probability. What does GWB, American Citizen, rich guy, have to do with the actions of BHO, Probably a Citizen, rich guy, asserter that he can have you killed? http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-secur ity/holder-us-can-lawfully-target-american-citizen s/2012/03/05/gIQANknFtR_story.html ( that I think one of the killings in question was a good idea doesn't make HIS assertion that he can have me killed, if he feels like it, ok. ) I don't choose to defend anything Bush actually did, but accusing him falsely just makes any argument you make based on lies, and worth derision, instead of discussion. I'm also not going to defend anything Bush, Or Obama does do because someone else did some evil that George's/ Barack's isn't as bad as............. "gee, he slaughtered that bus load of preshoolers with a chain saw.... at least he didn't gas 4 million Gypsies." Face it, that reasoning is pretty darn childish. I actually think Barack is a Citizen. A very angry one, with Daddy issues, and decades of association with revolutionaries, murderers, and terrorists. Started his political career in the living room of a couple that is, proudly, all three. Still don't know what his thesis was about. Do you? ( not that your thesis is a distillation of self, despite some college administrators belief.... although... Hilary's May be. ) Secretive people who have 3 "auto"biographies, but won't let anyone see a photocopy of his BC? Or his grades? Bothers you not? Love him you do? Cheat on you he will. | ||
| Fb1 |
Depends on your perspective. GWB was allowed to waive some magic wands... Soro, my comment earlier was deliberately pointed, but not meant to be cruel. I was trying to get a strong reaction from you. Re: your comments I highlighted above, yet again you resort to the "Well, look at all the bad stuff that so and so did!" What does ANY of that have to do with Mr. Obama's performance as President? With all due respect, absolutely nothing. Why were we ok with that series of abuses / mistakes / decisions (depending on your view)? Who, exactly, was "ok" with that? Probably NONE of the participants in this thread, including me. Why does this type of argument in favor of, or, at least, excusing Mr. Obama continually make the rounds? This comes down to, once again, whether or not you believe Obama has some long term communist / totalitarianist / guytwirlingmassivemoustacheist agenda. Absolutely false. It comes down to the simple, verifiable fact that it's unconstitutional. The Framers didn't say, "Due process for all, unless the President says so." It's unconstitutional, pure and simple. Doesn't matter if the President is the nicest, most honest guy or gal in the world, the Framers didn't grant this unfettered power to the President. No matter, the Right? Um, right? What are his motives? Mr. Obama could answer that far better than I. Research is your friend, if you're truly interested in the answer to your question. (Psssst, if you want to use the internet to do your research, ya better do so while ya can...just sayin'...) Is the plan really to crap on the constitution and wipe with the bill of rights? So it would seem. Did we assign that right to just anyone? Nope, just the President. Any cop? Nope, just the President. Do we really think that BHO will absolutely abuse this power? I do. What do you think? Did GWB abuse the Patriot Act? How does that have any bearing on what Mr. Obama may or may not do with his unprecedented newfound authority to act as King? Or, perhaps like the Patriot Act, was this something intended to deal with situations outside of something the framers of the Constitution did not anticipate? The Framers anticipated, based on their own experiences and by studying history, that power corrupts. That is precisely why the Constitution and Bill of Rights didn't spell out what the PEOPLE could and could not do, it spelled out what the GOVERNMENT could and could not do. Ironic, doncha think, that the Framers created rules that constrained THEM, and NOT their fellow American citizens? Brilliant men, the Founders. Question: If the Founding Fathers were alive today, do you think they'd be in favor of the NDAA? Who here was negatively impacted as a result of Patriot Act wiretaps? Anyone? Hello? I don't know anyone. And I was born in Tehran, Iran. And I know LOTS AND LOTS of people from less friendly nations, and not one of them ever was impacted by that Act. No joke - I knew TWO - not one, but TWO business partners whose first names were Jihad. They ran a little cafe. The suits never dropped in on them. Not relevant, amigo, more background noise in the context of whether Mr. Obama is or isn't a foreign national, or whether or not he'll use powers of the throne for good or evil. My point isn't any of these specific things. My point is that there is disproportionate hate and paranoia being directed towards this guy. Disproportionate by whose definition? I'm frankly quite alarmed at the systematic dismantling of our Constitution and Bill of Rights taking place before our eyes. What I can't understand is: Why aren't YOU alarmed? Do I like this? The compromises made in the face of the Constitution? The Bill of Rights? No. Good, we agree. By the way, I don't consider the NDAA a "compromise." I'd be more inclined to use the word "gutting." Do I think these things are being used against the average, law abiding citizen? The President can exclude ANYONE from due process, and he doesn't have to ask for permission, or explain why. ANYONE. That's a powerful tool, my friend. The Framers never meant for the President to have that kind of unaccountable power. Do I think "Obama is a Manchurian Candidate" of any sort" No. That's 'cause you're a nice guy and generally trust people. So am I. I would just like us all to calm the eff down and direct meaningful, original, internal commentary at these topics instead of regurgitating what our particular brand of media or friends just told us. I'm calm, 'dude. (See if you can spot the "Big Lebowski" reference...) What you wish is exactly what we're all doing here, trying to find the truth with the tools that we have available to us. This thread, in my opinion, is meaningful, and I've invested a lot of my time (which equates to a lot of lost self-employment income) in it. It isn't like I don't have other things I could be doing. No hard feelings, OK? I'm enjoying our debate. Best, FB | ||
| Fb1 |
PS to Saro: Have you ever taken a moment and contemplated what the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights really means:
Cut. And. Dried. | ||
| Blake |
FB, On NDAA... Where can we say exactly is the unconstitutional part in the NDAA? Per previous discussion the troubling language appears in sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA bill.
Didn't congress pass it almost unanimously? | ||
| Fb1 |
FB, On NDAA... Where can we say exactly is the unconstitutional part in the NDAA? Blake, I know we're on the same side of the aisle on this, and many other, political issues. Let me start by saying I'm late to the game. I've only recently started pulling my head out of the sand and REALLY started paying attention and trying to understand. This is all to say to you, and anyone else following along, that I'm nowhere near as well versed in all of this as I should be. One effect of this reality is that when taken to task on an issue, often I need to step back and do my due diligence. As I have done, briefly, this morning in regard to your question above. As I study the NDAA and its language further, may I point you towards some folks who are better equipped than I to comment: Senator Lindsey Graham says (bold emphasis mine): "1031, THE STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY TO DETAIN, DOES APPLY TO AMERICAN CITIZENS AND IT DESIGNATES THE WORLD AS THE BATTLEFIELD, INCLUDING THE HOMELAND." Link to C-SPAN video of Senator Graham's statement above: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/appearance/600840428 Congressman Justin Amash: http://amash.house.gov/sites/amash.house.gov/files /NDAALetter.pdf And then there's this: The verbiage you highlighted in red, i.e. (b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens- (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States. A strict reading of this verbiage would cause one to conclude that the President is not required to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or trial, but still permitted to do so, no? FB | ||
| Reepicheep |
So how does one get "convicted" of: (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces. Is it "because Eric Holder said so"? | ||
| Ulyranger |
"Is the plan really to crap on the constitution and wipe with the bill of rights? " Umm, by his own words it (the Constitution) is a collection of negative liberties.......because it restrains what government can do...... Anyone who can voice such a sentiment AND be voted POTUS says much about the state of our country. The provisions and intentions of the U.S. Constitution do not sunset, they are not "dated" but are just as relevant and purposeful today. Or at least should be.... This opinion that simplistic, singular issues (like Health Care for instance) were things that the Framers could not anticipate and thus did not account for in the Constitution is short-sighted. They did account for the frame work of a working government that empowered the people, but also held them to the utmost responsibility. It seems, we have lost sight of both......... | ||
| Fb1 |
Ulyranger - They did account for the frame work of a working government that empowered the people I agree mostly with your words and fully with your sentiment, but my take is that the Constitution belongs to the sovereign, i.e. the people. WE own the Constitution, and WE decide what is constitutional. Our government, as created by the Founders, are agents of the sovereign. We empower THEM, not the other way around. I think we're saying the same thing. Take care, FB | ||
| Sarodude |
My point is not that because a previous admin did it that the current admin can. My point is that we selectively choose what history we're trying to not repeat. I keep hearing about Stallinist this & that. All I'm trying to say is that that a president that asks for unusual powers is not necessarily going to do evil with those powers - and this is based on recent history which still qualifies as history where I come from.
None ever, Jerry. While I don't necessarily ENJOY the debate, it is worthwhile. Be safe. -Saro | ||
| Fb1 |
I keep hearing about Stallinist this & that. Not from me. Saro, you've agreed that you "sort of" think the Constitution is being raped (my choice of word, not yours). Good, that's a start. You're willing, however, to let the Constitution be raped because you're pretty sure the President won't abuse his powers. You're a much more trusting man than I, amigo. I'll leave it at this: Keep on eye on upcoming events here and abroad. Question EVERYTHING. Ask yourself "Why is this happening?" and "Why is this happening now?" The folks in charge aren't messing around, my friend. They're playing for keeps. Believe it, or not, that's your right, and I respect your right to believe anything you want. But at the very least: Keep your eyes and ears open. Hey, if you're interested in studying-up on yet another power recently abducted by the King, take a moment to check out HR 347:
Check this out: We - you and I - can't "disrupt" the business of the government going about their business in "federally restricted buildings and grounds." Well, gosh, that makes sense right? "Federally restricted" buildings include the White House, natch, and the VP's residence. Great stuff so far. Hey, wait a minute! What about the part that says you and I can be arrested and imprisoned for "disrupting" the government in "a building or [on] grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance." (bold emphasis mine) I.e, any damn place the President so chooses, if the cynic in me is interpreting this correctly. A "special event of national significance." What the hell does THAT mean!! But no worries, I'm sure the Pres is a great guy and really, really loves us. Kumbaya and all that. Here's a link to the new law, in case you want to see it for yourself: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr347enr/pdf /BILLS-112hr347enr.pdf Take care (and pay close attention), FB | ||
| Reindog |
It doesn't matter if the current President is a "good guy" with newly stolen un-Constitutional power. What about the next President and the one after that? Are they going to be just as "good"? Get on the train, Jew. The Constitution protects us from the heart of Man. Rationalize it away one drop at a time and you too, my friend, will one day be riding the rails if a government doesn't like the way you walk or talk. Ferris is kind. I guess he is using honey for a trap but I am more blunt. Wake the f**k up. Listen to Obama's own words and believe them, not what you think you would like for them to mean. He means exactly what he says. | ||
| Fb1 |
Reindoggy, thanks for adding your voice to this thread. My "tactic" is to try to teach rather than berate. Doesn't mean it's always the correct tactic, but I think it has a better chance at being effective than simply whacking someone upside the head with my point of view. That said, it's all good: I can think of two people who've participated in this thread whose opinions MAY have been changed a little (or a lot) by the discussion we've had. Some folks can't/don't/won't get it, regardless of how compelling the evidence may be. In addition, I suspect many of Mr. Obama's most ardent supporters worry about their mailbox money whenever the Constitution is brought up. Hi to the Mrs. and your Buellunatic neighbors. Hope to see y'all in the wind again one of these days. Hey Blake, I think this thread has about run its course. If you want to visit more about the NDAA, maybe we start a new thread? FB | ||
| Xdigitalx |
watching him now... is this his attempt to get Ron Pauls votes? Is he related to Rico Suave?? Kinda like the way Ricco seduces your woman,... only he wants votes. I never yelled at a POTUS before!>!>! ARGH this guy is an ASS! |
