Obama - elitist?? Naaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh

[revolution4PAUL]

I'll say this... and everyone knows my support falls elsewhere... but Ron Paul was DEAD ON in the debates and with his stance that America can't legally just go around the world Nation Building without a declaration of war by Congress.

And now the chickens are coming home to roost as our economy falters under the strain of $12 BILLION DOLLARS PER MONTH WAR OCCUPATION SPENDING.

Add to that the countries of the Middle East refusing to pump more oil for us and smile as our gas prices here in the United States go through the roof and we see just how right Ron Paul was about this issue.

YES YES YES YES YES!!!!!! I LOVE YOU!!!!!

RON PAUL REVOLUTION!!

~PEACE~

 

[Bunz]

THIS, from the people whose sole "issue" against McCain is his age.

Age is like 6th on the list.

Continuation of the Iraq war for the foreseeable future
Overturning Roe V Wade
Making no attempt to pay down the debt created with Bush
Continuation of overall Bush foreign policy
Flip flop so bad on immigration I dont know what he wants
His age, being that he might not be up to the grind that it takes to be POTUS

 

[Libsmasher]

Age is like 6th on the list.

No, age is 1st on the list,and there's only one item on the list.

 

[Libsmasher]

[COLO]I'll say this... and everyone knows my support falls elsewhere... but Ron Paul was DEAD ON in the debates and with his stance that America can't legally just go around the world Nation Building without a declaration of war by Congress.

And you got your constitutional law degree from ..... where? You don't know what you're talking about - as always.

And now the chickens are coming home to roost as our economy falters under the strain of $12 BILLION DOLLARS PER MONTH WAR OCCUPATION SPENDING.

YOUR NUMBERS ARE FAKE, AND THE ONLY CHICKENS ARE THE ONES YOU KEEP IN YOUR CAR IN THE TRAILER PARK.

Add to that the countries of the Middle East refusing to pump more oil for us and smile as our gas prices here in the United States go through the roof and we see just how right Ron Paul was about this issue.[/COLOR]

More fevered spurts from your brain - the middle east countries aren't refusing to pump oil for us - they pump it all the time. Why don't try - just TRYYYYYYYYYYYYYY to hook up with reality - just a little bit?

 

[top gun]

Libsmasher;39015]And you got your constitutional law degree from ..... where? You don't know what you're talking about - as always.

Do I need a Constitutional Law Degree to form my own opinion. I'm presuming you don't have one and I seem to hear quite a lot of drivel coming from over there.

YOUR NUMBERS ARE FAKE, AND THE ONLY CHICKENS ARE THE ONES YOU KEEP IN YOUR CAR IN THE TRAILER PARK.

You're right. Every economist knows that up to $12 BILLION DOLLARS PER MONTH IN DEBT is GREAT for any economy. We should have thought of this sooner as a stimulus package.

Sidebar: We already know you're a trailer park expert... you're projecting.

More fevered spurts from your brain - the middle east countries aren't refusing to pump oil for us - they pump it all the time. Why don't try - just TRYYYYYYYYYYYYYY to hook up with reality - just a little bit?

Okaaaaaaay???

SUBMIT FOXNEWS.COM HOME > POLITICS

President Bush Unable to Win Saudi Support on Gas Prices, Oil Production
Friday, May 16, 2008
AP

May 16: President Bush sits with Saudi King Abdullah upon his arrival at Riyadh-King Kahlid International Airport in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — President Bush failed to win the help he sought from Saudi Arabia to relieve skyrocketing American gas prices Friday, a setback for the former Texas oilman who took office predicting he would jawbone oil-producing nations to help the U.S.

Bush got a red-carpet welcome to this desert kingdom, home to the world's largest oil reserves, and promised to ask King Abdullah to increase production to reduce pressure on prices, which soared past $127 for the first time Friday. But Saudi officials said they already were meeting the needs of their customers worldwide and there was no need to pump more.

Their answer recalled Bush's trip to Saudi Arabia in January when he urged an increase in production but was rebuffed.

"Supply and demand are in balance today," al-Naimi told a news conference, bristling at criticism from the U.S. Congress. "How much does Saudi Arabia need to do to satisfy people who are questioning our oil practices and policies?"

 

[Here We Go]

yea keep using his middle name, maybe I will start thinking he is a Muslim Terrorist. That only works on the dumb ass 70% of Americans who actually believed 911 was done by Iraqis in Polls. Also shows you have nothing better then ,,,,,,oooo look at his middle name....scary

Name association is hilarious! Don't vote for John McCain because he has the same first name as John Wayne Gacey and John Wilkes Boothe!

 

[revolution4PAUL]

I'm surprised that no one has cited that Obama is actually related to Bush and Cheney.

This vid is only 13 seconds http://youtube.com/watch?v=KKHdEZSK9VU

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4xDaF9KKqec



RON PAUL REVOLUTION!!!!!

You guys haven't said anything about the Bush/ Obama family tree.... Doesn't that mean anything to you guys? Haha


RON PAUL REVOLUTION

~PEACE

 

[Pandora]

Age is like 6th on the list.

Continuation of the Iraq war for the foreseeable future
Overturning Roe V Wade
Making no attempt to pay down the debt created with Bush
Continuation of overall Bush foreign policy
Flip flop so bad on immigration I dont know what he wants
His age, being that he might not be up to the grind that it takes to be POTUS

McCain has said though he is pro life he would do nothing to change Roe Vs. Wade, respecting other points of view. That is one of the more lame things about him.

You said he made no attempt to pay down the debt created with Bush. As a senator he has little power but he did try to reduce spending. When they passed the tax cuts he voted no, and he called it reckless because Bush refused to reduce spending with the tax cuts. He went against his own party and the democrats and has paid and still is paying for it.

He has not flipped flopped on immigration, I wish he would. He listened when America screamed loudly at his bill to make everyone legal and compromised and said first he would work to secure the borders first then work on making everyone currently here legal.

I still don’t like his immigration idea. I personally want illegal people to go away, but at least he listens to the people unlike other politicians and judges who do what ever they dang well please.

I don’t like McCain and I hate to have to defend him but really at least those 3 issues are unfair to put on him. I can see though how you would not like his Iraq policy and his over seas policies.


I believe he is the only guy out there in the house or senate who is truly bi partisan. Lieberman tried to be and his own party went rabid on him, how dare he disagree with the democrats, same thing with Zell Miller. Both were kicked out on their butts and told never to return.

No one really likes bi partisanship, we all say we do but we don’t unless it’s the other guy seeing things our way. I don’t like McCain because he is always reaching out to the dang liberals and that is why most conservatives don’t like him and wont rally around him. But if Obama reached out to conservatives, the liberals wouldn’t like that much either.

So we all talk a big game of how we want to see them reach across the isle, its only when our guy reaches across the isle dragging the other guy back to our side that we are happy.

I think its fair to say this applies to everyone, liberals and conservatives, republicans and democrats.

Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman and McCain are the three who has really practiced it, and all three have been practically crucified for it.


I forgot Jim Jeffords, who was treated as bad by conservatives as Miller and Lieberman was by liberals

 

[Libsmasher]

Quote:
Libsmasher;39015]And you got your constitutional law degree from ..... where? You don't know what you're talking about - as always.

Do I need a Constitutional Law Degree to form my own opinion. I'm presuming you don't have one and I seem to hear quite a lot of drivel coming from over there.

OK -let's hear your learned exposition of a president's war-making powers.

Quote:
YOUR NUMBERS ARE FAKE, AND THE ONLY CHICKENS ARE THE ONES YOU KEEP IN YOUR CAR IN THE TRAILER PARK.

You're right. Every economist knows that up to $12 BILLION DOLLARS PER MONTH IN DEBT is GREAT for any economy. We should have thought of this sooner as a stimulus package.

You still have yet to show that the "$12 billion" is anything more than something you read from some gene-missing hack at moveon.org. Give a citation from a credible, reputable, qualifed source.

Quote:
More fevered spurts from your brain - the middle east countries aren't refusing to pump oil for us - they pump it all the time. Why don't try - just TRYYYYYYYYYYYYYY to hook up with reality - just a little bit?

Okaaaaaaay???

SUBMIT FOXNEWS.COM HOME > POLITICS

President Bush Unable to Win Saudi Support on Gas Prices, Oil Production
Friday, May 16, 2008
AP

May 16: President Bush sits with Saudi King Abdullah upon his arrival at Riyadh-King Kahlid International Airport in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — President Bush failed to win the help he sought from Saudi Arabia to relieve skyrocketing American gas prices Friday, a setback for the former Texas oilman who took office predicting he would jawbone oil-producing nations to help the U.S.

Bush got a red-carpet welcome to this desert kingdom, home to the world's largest oil reserves, and promised to ask King Abdullah to increase production to reduce pressure on prices, which soared past $127 for the first time Friday. But Saudi officials said they already were meeting the needs of their customers worldwide and there was no need to pump more.

Their answer recalled Bush's trip to Saudi Arabia in January when he urged an increase in production but was rebuffed.

"Supply and demand are in balance today," al-Naimi told a news conference, bristling at criticism from the U.S. Congress. "How much does Saudi Arabia need to do to satisfy people who are questioning our oil practices and policies?"

"Blah bla blah" - translation - they won't pump >>MORE<< for us

 

[top gun]

Libsmasher;39064]OK -let's hear your learned exposition of a president's war-making powers.

The War Powers Act of 1973 (Pub.L. 93-148), also referred to as the War Powers Resolution, is a resolution of Congress that stated that the President can send troops into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if America is already under attack or serious threat. The War Powers Act requires that the president notify Congress within 48 hours of committing troops to military action and forbids troops from remaining for more than 90 days without a declaration of war.

History
Under the United States Constitution, war powers are divided and not equal. Congress has the power to declare war and raise and support the armed forces, and control the funding of the war (Article I, Section 8), while the President is Commander in Chief (Article II, Section 2). It is generally agreed that the Commander in Chief role gives the President power to repel attacks against the United States and makes him responsible for leading the armed forces.

You still have yet to show that the "$12 billion" is anything more than something you read from some gene-missing hack at moveon.org. Give a citation from a credible, reputable, qualifed source.

AP Associated Press
updated 10:26 p.m. ET, Sun., March. 9, 2008
The flow of blood may be ebbing, but the flood of money into the Iraq war is steadily rising, new analysis show.

In 2008, its sixth year, the war will cost approximately $12 billion a month, triple the "burn" rate of its earliest years, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and co-author Linda J. Bilmes report in a new book.

Beyond 2008, working with "best-case" and "realistic-moderate" scenarios, they project the Iraq and Afghan wars, including long-term U.S. military occupations of those countries, will cost the U.S. budget between $1.7 trillion and $2.7 trillion — or more — by 2017.


"Blah bla blah" - translation - they won't pump >>MORE<< for us[/QUOTE]

Yes... exactly what I had said. They will not increase production.

 

[Libsmasher]

[]The War Powers Act of 1973 (Pub.L. 93-148), also referred to as the War Powers Resolution, is a resolution of Congress that stated that the President can send troops into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if America is already under attack or serious threat. The War Powers Act requires that the president notify Congress within 48 hours of committing troops to military action and forbids troops from remaining for more than 90 days without a declaration of war.

History
Under the United States Constitution, war powers are divided and not equal. Congress has the power to declare war and raise and support the armed forces, and control the funding of the war (Article I, Section 8), while the President is Commander in Chief (Article II, Section 2). It is generally agreed that the Commander in Chief role gives the President power to repel attacks against the United States and makes him responsible for leading the armed forces.
[/COLOR]

ALL the presidents, since the war powers act was passed, have said it was unconstitutional and would be ignored. The constitutionality has never been tested in court. If it is constitutional, why didn't some lib take the president to court, and stop the war? Many would have standing to do so. Either they are sissies, or they know that the act would be held unconstitutional. Why has congress, including most libs, gone along with the war and funded it? Do they want to be collaborators in an illegal act?

AP Associated Press
updated 10:26 p.m. ET, Sun., March. 9, 2008
The flow of blood may be ebbing, but the flood of money into the Iraq war is steadily rising, new analysis show.

In 2008, its sixth year, the war will cost approximately $12 billion a month, triple the "burn" rate of its earliest years, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and co-author Linda J. Bilmes report in a new book.

Beyond 2008, working with "best-case" and "realistic-moderate" scenarios, they project the Iraq and Afghan wars, including long-term U.S. military occupations of those countries, will cost the U.S. budget between $1.7 trillion and $2.7 trillion — or more — by 2017.

From wiki citing the Congressional Budget Office:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_war#Criticisms_and_costs

Financial costs with approximately $474 billion spent as of 12/07

That's 57 months or $8.3 billion a month. ANY war fought nowadays would be similarly if not MORE expensive - therefore it's illogical to use that as an argument against THIS war - it can only be an argument against war per se, and that should be taken to a thread on pacifism.

"Blah bla blah" - translation - they won't pump >>MORE<< for us

[COLOR=]Yes... exactly what I had said. They will not increase production.[

No, you said they won't pump oil - try to at least remember what you say.