Jesus lives in Texas?

 

San Antonio,  He's a Spurs Fan. 

I'm gonna try to make Kaineparker happy by posting this little exchange between Sanders and Rand Paul. Even though I support Rand Paul; I feel Sanders came out ahead on this issue. I'm not saying either side was right or wrong, but I do think Sanders made a much better case for his side of the argument.

 

I can see why this guy is popular on the left.

Kaineparker is pleased.

 

Oh no! Obama wants to invade Texas and kill Jesus! And I know it's true because I read it on the internet! 

 

Hey... wait a minute. Jesus lives in Texas?

He lives next to me. Jesus Rojas.

Oh no! Obama wants to invade Texas and kill Jesus! And I know it's true because I read it on the internet! 

 

Hey... wait a minute. Jesus lives in Texas?

Depending on who you ask, all their exes live in texas, and at least one of their Exes is Jesus.

 

Athough it's pronounced Hay-Zues.

 

Oh no! Obama wants to invade Texas and kill Jesus! And I know it's true because I read it on the internet! 

 

Hey... wait a minute. Jesus lives in Texas?

Depending on who you ask, all their exes live in texas, and at least one of their Exes is Jesus.

 

Athough it's pronounced Hay-Zues.

 

I think you meant Eses.

Things I learned today from my senators newsletter to my school email.

 

The Senate passed a balanced budget resolution that basically cuts social programs up the wazoo (Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps lose 4.2 trillion dollars in 10 years) while boosting military spending (651 Billion in the budget for the guns in 2021).

 

Only two republicans to vote against this were Cruz and Paul who said it didn't cut hard enough.

Things I learned today from my senators newsletter to my school email.

 

The Senate passed a balanced budget resolution that basically cuts social programs up the wazoo (Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps lose 4.2 trillion dollars in 10 years) while boosting military spending (651 Billion in the budget for the guns in 2021).

 

Only two republicans to vote against this were Cruz and Paul who said it didn't cut hard enough.

 

Its important to have a functional and well funded army...what if ISIS invades the USA through Mexico, this should concern all Americans immensely     

 

Things I learned today from my senators newsletter to my school email.

 

The Senate passed a balanced budget resolution that basically cuts social programs up the wazoo (Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps lose 4.2 trillion dollars in 10 years) while boosting military spending (651 Billion in the budget for the guns in 2021).

 

Only two republicans to vote against this were Cruz and Paul who said it didn't cut hard enough.

 

Its important to have a functional and well funded army...what if ISIS invades the USA through Mexico, this should concern all Americans immensely     

 

Well another bill mentioned in the email I got from Mrs Earnst, they're pushing the bill to force the President to allow congress to approve or veto any deals with Iran... and to arm and train the Kurds in Iraq to combat Isis (Or any closely related successor group.)

 

 

Things I learned today from my senators newsletter to my school email.

 

The Senate passed a balanced budget resolution that basically cuts social programs up the wazoo (Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps lose 4.2 trillion dollars in 10 years) while boosting military spending (651 Billion in the budget for the guns in 2021).

 

Only two republicans to vote against this were Cruz and Paul who said it didn't cut hard enough.

 

Its important to have a functional and well funded army...what if ISIS invades the USA through Mexico, this should concern all Americans immensely     

 

Well another bill mentioned in the email I got from Mrs Earnst, they're pushing the bill to force the President to allow congress to approve or veto any deals with Iran... and to arm and train the Kurds in Iraq to combat Isis (Or any closely related successor group.)

 

 

Well I can understand the reasoning behind training the Kurds, they are pro-Western and seem really prepared to engage with ISIS. They just need training and resources

 

But the Iran bill worries because what if after all the hard word that Obama does to ensure a peaceful settlement with Iran gets undermined by the next USA president who could be Republican?

 

 

 

Things I learned today from my senators newsletter to my school email.

 

The Senate passed a balanced budget resolution that basically cuts social programs up the wazoo (Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps lose 4.2 trillion dollars in 10 years) while boosting military spending (651 Billion in the budget for the guns in 2021).

 

Only two republicans to vote against this were Cruz and Paul who said it didn't cut hard enough.

 

Its important to have a functional and well funded army...what if ISIS invades the USA through Mexico, this should concern all Americans immensely     

 

Well another bill mentioned in the email I got from Mrs Earnst, they're pushing the bill to force the President to allow congress to approve or veto any deals with Iran... and to arm and train the Kurds in Iraq to combat Isis (Or any closely related successor group.)

 

 

Well I can understand the reasoning behind training the Kurds, they are pro-Western and seem really prepared to engage with ISIS. They just need training and resources

 

But the Iran bill worries because what if after all the hard word that Obama does to ensure a peaceful settlement with Iran gets undermined by the next USA president who could be Republican?

 

I don't think that the bill would pass constitutional muster, you can't tie an executives hand in that way and expect the government to operate on an international stage with treaties etc.

 

But the Iran bill worries because what if after all the hard word that Obama does to ensure a peaceful settlement with Iran gets undermined by the next USA president who could be Republican?

 

If it's Paul I can assure you we'll have a deal with Iran pretty quickly. The guy likes our situation with Iran less than Obama. Any other republican though? That's a different story. If Paul isn't the GOP nominee I might have to vote.. Democrat...  :(

 

I guess at that point I wouldn't vote at all. 

 

 

But the Iran bill worries because what if after all the hard word that Obama does to ensure a peaceful settlement with Iran gets undermined by the next USA president who could be Republican?

 

If it's Paul I can assure you we'll have a deal with Iran pretty quickly. The guy likes our situation with Iran less than Obama. Any other republican though? That's a different story. If Paul isn't the GOP nominee I might have to vote.. Democrat...  :(

 

I guess at that point I wouldn't vote at all. 

 

 

 

Vote Democrat Namutree, you will sleep better at night knowing you made the right moral decision 

How are the democrats morally good and the republicans morally bad?

How are the democrats morally good and the republicans morally bad?

 

You kidding right? I never know when you are being serious ..

 

Its a simple understanding...any political view or direction  that is opposed to all the improvements that Obama in the USA is  automatically considered morally bankrupt and needs to be scrutinized

 

Get with the program Meshugger, everyone knows that !!!!

 

How are the democrats morally good and the republicans morally bad?

 

You kidding right? I never know when you are being serious ..

 

It's intentional, or at least to 40%. It keeps people on edge and it tingles their paranoidal senses. Which is good as that requires people to think harder than before. Or maybe not. Maybe it is just an experiment in Jungian psychology.

 

But what moral decree do democrats swear upon that republicans lack? Is it the one when they chose to side with the southern states before the civil war and were pro-slavery? Or was it the one when Johnson signed the civil rights bill? Or was it the one when Ron Paul demanded all military bases  to withdrawn from the middle east? Or was it the one when Obama extended the Patriot Act? Or was it the one when he demanded JSOC to attack globally, causing 2000 innocent deaths in assassin missions that we know of as collateral deaths?

 

What is morally good here?

 

 

How are the democrats morally good and the republicans morally bad?

 

You kidding right? I never know when you are being serious ..

 

It's intentional, or at least to 40%. It keeps people on edge and it tingles their paranoidal senses. Which is good as that requires people to think harder than before. Or maybe not. Maybe it is just an experiment in Jungian psychology.

 

But what moral decree do democrats swear upon that republicans lack? Is it the one when they chose to side with the southern states before the civil war and were pro-slavery? Or was it the one when Johnson signed the civil rights bill? Or was it the one when Ron Paul demanded all military bases  to withdrawn from the middle east? Or was it the one when Obama extended the Patriot Act? Or was it the one when he demanded JSOC to attack globally, causing 2000 innocent deaths in assassin missions that we know of as collateral deaths?

 

What is morally good here?

 

Look at you ...getting all technical with me 

 

No I was just joking, you generally  cannot say any one political party has the moral high ground over another one . In fact many  people would argue that words " moral politics" are an oxymoron because many think politics is an immoral practice. I don't think that but I hear that many times 

 

So its not really applicable to look at political parties in a moral context, we measure them in other ways 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAT_BuJAI70

So...

 

Where has Obama "openly declared" this?

On public radio, several years before he ran for the presidency.

 

So...

 

Where has Obama "openly declared" this?

On public radio, several years before he ran for the presidency.

 

You call that an open declaration of contempt of our founding documents? Sounds more like he thinks it doesn't do enough for the people since it only covers negative rights, but it's not like he thinks those rights bad; he just wishes it also included positive rights. That's not really contempt.

Things I learned today from my senators newsletter to my school email.

 

The Senate passed a balanced budget resolution that basically cuts social programs up the wazoo (Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps lose 4.2 trillion dollars in 10 years) while boosting military spending (651 Billion in the budget for the guns in 2021).

 

Only two republicans to vote against this were Cruz and Paul who said it didn't cut hard enough.

 

Have people join the military for medical aid and food?

 

So...

 

Where has Obama "openly declared" this?

On public radio, several years before he ran for the presidency.

 

Oh, you mean the one where he probably said the exact opposite of what was reported by the McCain campaign?

 

http://audio.wbez.org/Odyssey/CourtandCivilRights.mp3 The original Audio program from 14 years ago.

You call that an open declaration of contempt of our founding documents? Sounds more like he thinks it doesn't do enough for the people since it only covers negative rights, but it's not like he thinks those rights bad; he just wishes it also included positive rights. That's not really contempt.

 

Well, wishing for the constitution to contain things which are fundamentally incompatible/contradictory with the things the constitution does contain, is pretty much showing contempt for the latter.

 

Also, this part would be quite damning if true:

 

Second, Obama regrets that the Constitution places “essential constraints” on the government’s ability to provide positive economic rights and that “we have not broken free” of these Constitutional impediments.

 

But yeah, chances are that this is not a completely fair paraphrasing of what Obama actually said (seeing how the author conveniently avoided to directly quote more than tiny sentence fragments, and apparently doesn't even link to the full text). I don't put much trust in these kinds of politicized attack articles/blogs, no matter the political side the author is on.

 

You call that an open declaration of contempt of our founding documents? Sounds more like he thinks it doesn't do enough for the people since it only covers negative rights, but it's not like he thinks those rights bad; he just wishes it also included positive rights. That's not really contempt.

 

Well, wishing for the constitution to contain things which are fundamentally incompatible/contradictory with the things the constitution does contain, is pretty much showing contempt for the latter.

It's not contempt as contempt isn't the same as disagreement.

 

I've met people whom truly hold the constitution in contempt, and they don't wish it was more aligned with their political views; they wish it and the concept behind a constitution didn't exist at all. <---That's contempt. 

Didn't the founding fathers intend for there to be constitutional conventions to review and ammend the constitution every 10 years or so to ensure it represented the will of the people and some such? It wasn't until the last 50 years or so that it became some sort of holy scripture.

According to Slate, the RNC is saying "Aw hell naw" to picking favorites from within the party, leaving that fun little job to the Kind folks at Fox.

 

Because that's not gonna bite them in the ass.

So... apparently Rand Paul is going to use the Patriot Act to try to catapult himself in the polls. Trying to Filibuster it against the republican party to prevent it's extension.