Do you have faith in the GOP?
BrianD3
2012/06/05 16:26:19
|
|
|||||
|
7 votes
|
|
10% | |||
|
3 votes
|
|
4% | |||
|
6 votes
|
|
9% | |||
|
11 votes
|
|
16% | |||
|
7 votes
|
|
10% | |||
|
3 votes
|
|
4% | |||
|
2 votes
|
|
3% | |||
|
5 votes
|
|
7% | |||
|
2 votes
|
|
3% | |||
|
1 vote
|
|
1% | |||
|
5 votes
|
|
7% | |||
|
15 votes
|
|
22% | |||
Top Opinion
-
DizziNY 2012/06/14 16:49:42can I insert a negative number here?
Thugs in Brooks Brothers suits!
Nice try though.
Ron Paul can still win, since the RNC Legal Council supports the position that all delegates are considered Free Agents at the National Convention:
People who think doing the same thing repetitively will result in a different outcome are crazy.
Wrong, it proves you have your eyes open and know that neither is worth a fiddlers f@ck.
Anyways, what I am is just sick of the spending, the deficit, the debt and incremental loss of liberty.
I am also fully aware of the lack of change Romney brings to the table.
Paul wants to bring the troops home yes.
There is nothing to surrender as there is no wars we belong in anywhere. Certainly no wars declared by Congress except possibly Afghanistan where Osama is already dead, mission accomplished I dare say. Troops should already be home.
It will be us against the world if we continue bombing Brown people overseas for nothing more than talk and hearsay.
Ron Paul is a proliberty Constitutionalist with 30 years to support that position.
Continuing with Romney/Obama who both support the Patriot Act and the NDAA is what will destroy the Constitution....
Um no they wouldn't, blind faith in SCOTUS is not recommended.
Robed Deities do not always make the right choice.
Consider Wickard v. Filburn, SCOTUS said it was ok to destroy wheat crops grown for personal use via the Commerce Clause...
Consider the Fugitive Slave Laws, SCOTUS said they were cool...
As to the rest of your post. We would not be overrun, a strong defense would guarantee that outcome never occurs. Even back when we were Isolationists we were never overrun and no one is even suggesting we become isolationists again. That argument holds no water.
Either way as I said, Robed Deities do not always make the right choice. I gave you facts look the cases up, it isn't hard.
here is another, SCOTUS approved the tazering of Pregnant women and you trust them? Seriously?
Alex Jones is irrelevant deflection.
The 1700's you say. Just because it was done setting a precedent does not mean it was correct, Congress should always be involved in declarations of war to ensure we don't get needless wars of aggression sucking our tax dollars and our soldiers lives for the wrong reasons. We especially should not relish the deaths of innocent women and children because we must have unjust wars executed by Presidents that don't have to seek the permission of Congress. This is what you advocate.
You warmonger types will not be happy until you have this country involved in a world war instigated by OUR actions... Unless our Congress has a direct hand in declarations of war we risk exactly that.
Wont it be grand, to be brok...
Either way as I said, Robed Deities do not always make the right choice. I gave you facts look the cases up, it isn't hard.
here is another, SCOTUS approved the tazering of Pregnant women and you trust them? Seriously?
Alex Jones is irrelevant deflection.
The 1700's you say. Just because it was done setting a precedent does not mean it was correct, Congress should always be involved in declarations of war to ensure we don't get needless wars of aggression sucking our tax dollars and our soldiers lives for the wrong reasons. We especially should not relish the deaths of innocent women and children because we must have unjust wars executed by Presidents that don't have to seek the permission of Congress. This is what you advocate.
You warmonger types will not be happy until you have this country involved in a world war instigated by OUR actions... Unless our Congress has a direct hand in declarations of war we risk exactly that.
Wont it be grand, to be broke and unable to pay our soldiers the wages they deserve defending us from an enemy that is fed up because we have been toppling regimes and killing god knows how many innocent women and children?
How then will we defend our Borders? How exactly is preemptive wars of aggression going to prevent this inevitable outcome from transpiring? Did it prevent the allies from trashing the axis when Germany started invading other countries just because? really, is this what you advocate? This is what we are doing in the Middle East.
Lets cut to the chase and play the end game now. If we invade Iran, China will be involved because their Oil supply will be threatened. Why not cut out the middle man and go directly to the real player here. Seeing as China may someday do something to you know, why don't we conduct a preemptive war over there?
Clearly if anyone who has lost their mind, it is you.
Secure the Border, quit bombing brown people overseas and quit killing innocent women and children....
Quit meddling where we have no business and we will quit receiving blowback from it. Or are you one of those who thinks the CIA is wrong? Blowback is THEIR term my freind, not mine.
That does not mesh logically with the assertion.
But hey hearsay is apparently all you are good for...
Here is an article about the "blowback" which you apparently think we need more of:
http://english.pravda.ru/worl...
Seriously you should have watched the vids I posted long ago, because your continued pushing of an incorrect assumption does not help you any.