Ferret

PigDog Wow, Rush and AC/DC, that brings back memories!! My first concert ever was AC/DC in 1981 when I was 13. For Those About to Rock Tour, and it was awesome!! Rush was my favorite back then and I saw them 3 times. I think they are better than Triumph, but a different sound altogether. Triumph is also damned good, but I think Rush has them beat. If you want to talk about defining, go to Iron Maiden and the release of Number of the Beast .... that defined a new age in Hard Rock. And Hxtr, Pink Floyd is in a class by themselves!!! Awesome band, but I don't quite know how to compare what Roger Waters and David Gilmore put together to any of these other bands. I love their stuff, but I can't put it in the same category. Respects to the Maiden as well.... My Eddie posters made my paretns worry about me

CptCanada ACDC puts on a rockin live show. Mabe not the best but up there. Funny you should say that.... AC/DC is next in line. Where Led Zep defined "rock", AC/DC defined Hard Rock: And even beyond Joe Perry of Aerosmith, Eddie Van Halen, Jimmi Hendrix, & Jimmy Page of Led Zep - ANGUS YOUNG IS THE GREATEST GUITAR PLAYER EVER BORN. Saw them live in Charlotte in '99...... BEST CONCERT I EVER WENT TO. Every fan knew every word of every song, and air guitars abounded. Angus never missed a single farkin' note. The concert lasted 3+ hours, and people were passed out from the adrenaline & sheer awe. The show I saw, Angus did a 5-minute solo like in the Let There Be Rock video above. Beethoven, Mozart, & Bach were MORONS compared to Angus Young. Shoes, shorts, and an electric guitar is all this guy needs to bring thousands of people to their knees in awe. Head-bowing respect to AC/DC as well.

There is one greatest band ever. That is Led Zeppelin. Period. They have influenced EVERY good band since. No comparison. These guys were defining the future & perfection of Rock & Roll, playing sold-out stadiums, selling albums & posters & playing on car radios, and directing music culture a decade before many of these other so-called "bands" could eat solid food. Profound lyrics, virtuoso lead singer, head-swinging rythms, mind-searing guitar solos, dash-board-drumming bass & percussion, the perfect application of Rock's *SOUL* - Rhythm & Blues, transition between stoic acoustic harmony & bone-crunching 1,000 decibel rock POWER, and millions of fans that know EVERY WORD to songs..... that would be the Led Zeppelin. They started it ALL. Goin' to California, Thank You, Moby Dick, Heartbreaker, Rock & Roll, Tangerine, Ten Years Gone, Song Remains the Same, Misty Mountain Hop, Dancing Days, What Is and Never Should Be....... remember this graphic?: I could post about 30 more classics that most other "bands" practiced in their garages when they were getting started, but you get the point. Robert Plant and Jimmy Page are the professors, the rest are under-grad students scribbling notes in class, trying to learn how it is done. No disrespect to other "bands", there is certainly a lot of good music out there...... but there is the best, and then there is the rest. "Won't you squeeze my lemon, til the juice runs down my leg". 'Nuff said.

I've run into the same problem. You'd think these jonesers would LIKE a good stabbing, but no...... they have to get all shooty & run away. Hijack, Snafu and even Burnnbright aren't afraid of whipping out their surgical tools, nor should anyone else be. If you see a wild-eyed psychopath slingin' steel at you, don't be a pansy & back-pedal while shooting. Be a MAN, and take your knifing like an adult. Better yet, whip out your own blade, and let's dance. If you don't, I'm gonna send BigMeanDean after ya.

NickTheGrip What surprises me more is that any of you are surprised by this. Anyone who aspires to be the leader of still barely the most powerful country in the world has to be an elitist pig, with a silver spoon stuck up his (or her) arse. Hey let's elect a "down home" humble, self effacing person - wait, people like that don't run for public office - they have real jobs where they are expected to perform or get fired. We really are a bunch of idiots - but I luvs yas all (in a manly "what about them Lions" kind of way) LOL +100 Well said.

Unless things change DRAMATICALLY, Obama will suffer a landslide loss in 2012, rivalled only by Jimmy Carter's. It doesn't matter if the Repub nominee is a grapefruit named Harold. Even OBAMA's grotesquely over-optimistic economists are predicted a blighted 1.3% economic growth in 2012, with 9.5% unemployment. That's not bad, that's REAL BAD. He is as aloof and arrogant as Paris Hilton.... and has about the same understanding of economics. Even hard-core liberals are starting to have "voter's remorse" about this clown. Did you see him riding his little girl's bike & dainty helmet, on his "lifestyles of the rich & famous" vacation? You can almost hear him going "wheeee!" lol Yes...... THAT is the "leader of the free world" - the symbol of modern America - our representative to the rest of the world. **PUKE** I'm SURE between his caviar, champagne, and lobster meals (no "peas" on the menu), he is VERY deeply concerned about the economic crisis & the worsening plight of "bitter-clinger" lower- and middle-class Americans. But..... at least before he left for his WELL-DESERVED vacation (he & Michelle took seperate "his & her" jumbo jets to Martha's Vineyard) - he did take the time to sign an "Executive Order", to stop deporting illegal immigrants.... even if they were arrested for serious crimes. Functionally, a de-facto "Amnesty". Which is undeniably flipping a bird in the faces of the over-whelming majority of Americans, and directly contradicting LAWS PASSED BY CONGRESS..... nothing short of taking a shit on the Office of the President. I know things can change in politics, but unless something crazy happens, this embarrassing clown of a President IS going to suffer a humiliating, historic landslide loss in 2012. If only we could mave the election up sooner, and avoid another 14 months of historic failure & embarrassing incompetence.

"Cup o' cheese".... lol We call those "slow balls"

PimpedOutPete Prime example of my point... Bachman's response to being asked about her thoughts on gay & civil rights.. http://www.cnn.com/video/standard.html#/video/bestoftv/2011/08/15/exp.ac.kth.bachmann.cnn?hpt=hp_t2 So don't vote for her. You have that right. Until socialist Progressives successfully subvert the Constitution that you apparently feel is so outdated, you DO still have the right to vote for whoever the heck you want to, and speak your mind against whoever you want to. That right is provided to you by the "outdated" 1770's Constitution. You're welcome. You claim to be somewhat "conservative"..... but I know conservatives & conservatism pretty dog-gone well - and you sir, are not very conservative - at least as American conservatives define the term. I don't doubt that you are indeed a "conservative Canadian" would honestly put you about 5- 10 notches "left of center" in America. I respect that, but it is what it is. That being the case, as with McCain, we conservatives saw what happens when we let conservative-disliking liberals choose our candidate for us. Taking the advice of people that desire your failure is NOT a good idea. That won't happen again in this election, I assure you. But cheers.... enjoy the Bachman-bashing. Maybe you can get some Beck & Palin bashing in, too. The outdated Constitution ensures your right to do so, and it is making a comeback, like it or not. Love ya Petey, my friend..... but leave the "conservatism", to conservatives.

lol. And better than the butt-sex our current President is performing on us. Kobe Bryant would be PROUD.

PimpedOutPete It's called the main stream media because they represent the overwhelming majority of Americans. Oooooh, you lost it there, Petey. I must call Bullshit. Gallup is about the most respected & objective polliing organizations in America. (Check ANY other poll to compare, if you wish) Gallup says as of August 1st, (and is consistent with other polls) that 41% of Americans consider themselves "Conservative".... 36% are "moderates".... and a mere 21% as "liberal". Look it up for yourself, here is a Gallup link : http://www.gallup.com/poll/148745/political-ideology-stable-conservatives-leading.aspx Almost TWICE as many Americans call themselves conservative as liberal. Yet in study after study after study after study, report after report - statistics show an OVERWHLEMING liberal bias in mainstream media "news reporting" (I can provide links to about 50 if you ask)..... if you deny that EVERY TV "news" source besides FoxNews, and EVERY newspaper/ magazine source besides the Wall Street Journal isn't overtly Obama/ Democrat biased - then you lose 50 credibility points. THAT isn't even really arguable. At LEAST 75% of the media is overtly liberal, and only 21% of the population is. Don't believe ol' Ferret, look THAT up for yourself. That is NOT "an overwhelming majority of Americans".... that is outright horseshit. (Meant respectfully).

PimpedOutPete I would never say I was an authority on American Politics. I lived many years there and most likely will retire there as well. What disadvantages both Nick and myself have, we do also have major advantages in living in cultures different from America, living in a alternate political system.. Knowledge is invaluable. You are gravely mistaken if u think most moderates or democrats are leftist liberals like President Obama. There are many small government moderate democrats like myself. You are also wrong if u think all democrats want to spend money, Clinton was a small government democrat and moved the party to the right when it came to economics. If the GOP (Tea Party) want to regain power and implement their policy, they then better listening to my concerns and Nicks or u will lose the VAST majority of Americans who feel the same.. Point taken. A valid point at that. But while I lack the experience of living in a different culture/ country - I (hopefully) gain credit in being more experienced & educated in American history & the legal/ social/ historic ramifications of the Constitution & American culture. You say "Knowledge is invaluable"... I couldn't possibly agree more strongly. So indulge me for a moment, to hark back to my US History senior thesis from college, which was a comparison of the British "Magna Carta" to the US Constitution. (I'll be brief, and it is very relevant to the conversation) The British Magna Carta (1215 AD) was the template of the Constitution. The Constitution is basically a modified re-write of the Magna Carta. The basis of both, is the empowerment & acquisition of human rights for lower-class, more populous, and less powerful people.... over the uber-rich, uber-wealthy royalty/ "monarchial" class. The British Magna Carta was perhaps the MOST evolutionary/ revolutionary document in human history. But it pretty muched FAILED. It's tenets did not take root in Brittain for about 600 hundred years. The reason it initially failed was NOT because it was flawed, but because the uber-powerful monarchial powers at the time, were so deeply ingrained and powerful, that it was squashed/ banned/ followers & proponents punished horrifically (i.e. beheaded). The reason that the Constitution succeeded much faster, was because there was not such a deeply ingrained, established "royalty" class in the American colonies. Had there been, it may well have failed initially as well. The feudal British/monarchial version of the "mainstream media", said pretty much the same things the framers of the Magna Carta that the modern liberal "media", say about the Tea Party. More significantly, the Monarchy of the 1770's & 1780's said the EXACT same thing about the framers of the Constitution & the Boston Tea Party, that the modern mainstream media says about the "new" Tea Party......."terrrorists, malcontents, rabal-rousers, troublemakers, un-educated hillbilly rubes". Having that invaluable history lesson to learn from, I fear that the same type of uber-powerful, uber-wealthy "royalty" (government elite) class is forming in America, and thinks the same way about "lower-class" mainstream Americans. I think many honorable liberals & moderates are GRAVELY mistaken, to believe the Progressive media's grotesquely biased HORSESHIT, that a mega-powerful Politburo central gov't (ruled by uber-wealthy/ monarchial elites) is the best plan for individual rights & individual freedom..... and that only "conservatives" are the uber-wealthy/powerful fat-cats. In fact, just the OPPOSITE is true. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Both the Magna Carta and the Constitution held that freedom & individual rights are **NOT** "given" by the government/ ruling class, but by God/ humanity itself. And I can't help but agree. This isn't my original thought... but that of far more brilliant & courageous men from feudal Brittain & colonial America, whose life experience, education, & worldview DWARF mine. But that doesn't mean that I can't or shouldn't learn from their historic sacrifiices & insight. Having reflected deeply on it more than once, I just can't see why so many liberals gullibly believe that a massive & all-powerful (Monarchial) Federal gov't - is better for human rights & individual freedoms....... than people that demand individual rights, and a LESS powerful, LESS Monarchial Feedral gov't. It just seems completely counter-intuitive and overtly illogical to me.... on the surface, in the middle, and at the core. "Knowledge is invaluable".... indeed. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. I respectfully submit, that I do not wish to repeat it.

Pete/ Nick..... You keep saying that you want details, details, details, and specifics to the Nth degree. I respectfully submit that you can find a GREAT number of details, if you go to the candidates' websites, Tea Party websites, conservative websites, or (gasp) even watch FoxNews. If you are waiting for ANY objective or honest evaluation or reporting on conservatives or their agenda/ statements to pop up on CNN, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, Huffington Post, New York Times, PBS, NPR, or Comedy Central - you will be waiting a LOOOOOOOONG time. Those "GlennBeck is Satan" websites that Pete seems to frequently visit, just aren't a good source for objectively presented, honest information. In fact, they *may* be slanted in the other direction. The election is well over a year away, and more details will be fleshed out once the primaries are over. I want more specifics of Obama's "debt reduction plan", and I'm not getting it, even from dutiful Democrat networks. Same for "job creation", "economic recovery", "ending bi-partisanship", etc., etc.. So welcome to the club. But I'm telling you, you have to actually WANT to hear answers, before you can actually "hear" them. I have been married long enough to understand "selective perception" is a real thing (I can't hear the kids crying at 2 AM like my wife can, and she can yell in my ear from 3 inches away to clean out the garage and I never hear a word ). And I think maybe you do the same thing I do sometimes, which is just hearing what you want to hear. Respectfully submitted.

PimpedOutPete You sound a great politician Ferret but you still havent answered the question i asked from the beginning... A. Healthcare... If your about to dump it on the states, what would u wish to see happen to improve quality (for its in the stinker now...and dropping like a rock!!.. B. Gay Rights.. Evvery Tea Party and Republican are dodging that one like mad. America is becoming more & more liberal on the subject and the Tea Party (which are more Right of moderate GOP's) have made their feelings on the subject very well known in years past.. You rather lock them up & throw away the key... So what is their stance, I want to see them go on the record. C. Roe vs Wade... Another Federal Law that the Tea Party have been null on... Why?...They have made well aware in the past that they would appeal it... If they think otherwise, why havent they gone on the record.. D. Immigration... A federal mandate.. All complaints with no solutions to date.. E. Foreign Policy... What is the Tea Parties stance on foreign policy... Iraq, Iran, North Korea... F. Social Programs.. If you choose to cut them, what do you do with the millions that survive on them?. (Im not condoning these programs just asking what would happen). G. America's gluttony on foreign Energy?.... You hate the Muslims and call them terorists (or many of you have done).. But you buy their Oil... thats so hypocritical.. H.. So you get elected and you reduce federal government.. But State goverment grows incredibly large along with the need for more state funds to pay for these expences. I..So you slay the federal demon... but you create a new one at the state level or county level... Do you not think there is corruption at the state/county level.. Instead of millions of dollars spent on guying federal votes... All u will need is a cheap hooker and Big Mac meal to bribe someone at the county level.. Hey you just reduced the deficit! hahahahaha One last thing... So your no longer a slave to a federal goverment... but traded it in to a state one... You question my intelligence in telling me I dont understand or its cultural... The reality is I do get it...but I have thought it out one step farther. Like i said in the past..Sometimes Im wrong but I dont paint myself in a corner but rather see the entire picture... So you get elected and you dump this entire mess on the counties and states... Is that it?.. Your telling me its no longer your problem, its theres?.. Thats the answer?.. The funny thing is I agree on smaller government.. smaller more efficent one thats the diffence. Answers: A. Get lobbyists & politicians the hell out of it, and let cometition & the free market improve quality & lower costs.... as competition tends to do. B. You keep insisting on hearing the Tea Party's "official stance" on gay rights, but there is no "official" party, and hence no "official stance". If there were, it would likely be for the government to stay the hell out private & "sexuality" affairs anyway... it's none of their bidness. C. Because it is not something for grinning politicians to decide, it should be up to the VOTERS. And I believe they have said that a few times. D. You're kidding, right??? OK, I'll humor you. Build the freaking border fence (that is *already* approved, funded, and not yet barely started), ENFORCE immigration laws instead of ignoring them & don't sue/slander the states if they try to do it for you, deport ALL illegals convicted of crimes after serving their sentences, prosecute employers of illegals and REQUIRE PHOTO ID's to vote. E. There are as many "stances" on foreign policy, as there are candidates. Democrats have WIDE variety of "foreign policy stances", as do Republicans. Paul & Bachman are both "Tea Party oriented", yet have EXTREMELY different views on what to do with Iran/ Iraq/ NK. Obama & Lieberman & Kucinich have extremely different views on Iraq/ Iran, now don't they? So what is the "official" Democrat stance? F. Slowly wean those programs back to the states, "means-check" the recipients to eliminate the RAMPANT fraud (that Obama promised to fix but hasn't *quite* got to yet), and mandate job-training/education/ proof of job interviews to recipients. If found to be TRULY needy & helpless, then HELP THEM. But if they are found to be lazy-ass abusers driving "welfare Cadillacs" and passing days smoking bowls & sippin' 40 playing XBOX, cut 'em off. G. Because we are't ALLOWED to drill *here*. H. So states raise their taxes accordingly. State politicians face MUCH more direct voter scrutiny as to the how & why they spend - the voters have more control. At least states are authorized by the Constitution to do so. But conservative Nebraska taxpayers won't be forced to bail out California's corrupted liberal fiscal disaster, and South Carolinians won't be forced to pay for 7-digit salaries for New York state union lobbyists. I. Of course there is corruption in all politics, but it is much more managable at a state level. The Fedreal gov't deals in hundreds of Billion$/ Trillion$ of dollars at a time... much easier to pilfer from the Federal gov't than from the smaller state govt's. And again, state voters have more control than they would with national politicians. I don't question your intelligence AT ALL.... I think you are a smart guy. But I think you might be seeing American issues through a Canadian mindset. The same thing admittedly I (and most Americans) do to other countries. It's natural. But you keep asking the same questions, and I keep answering them as specifially as they can be answered, only to be told I didn't answer the question again. I'm just trying to explain in detail. Lastly my friend: "So you get elected and you dump this entire mess on the counties and states... Is that it?.. Your telling me its no longer your problem, its theres?.. Thats the answer?.." - I think you are smart enough to KNOW that it isn't that simple, and I don't recall ANYONE ever having said that... that is a "straw-man" statement. The Federal gov't has run up this mind-blowing debt, and they are going to have to remedy it. It is no more fair for the Fed to run up massive debts & then irresponsibly dump it onto the states, as it is for them to heap it & dump it on the top 50% of taxpayers as they have for the last 40 years. But to turn it back the other way, you say you are also for "smaller gov't"... what do YOU suggest?

PimpedOutPete No overlap in jurisdiction... More government control to the states while some key areas remain under federal law. Does that make me a moderate republican now?.. (lol) I don't know about that, but it sure puts you in direct conflict with the Progressive agenda.

NickTheGrip I have still yet to hear anything on how they will actually fix anything. All I hear is "Obama must go" Wait, I know, lets give all the money to the "job creators" because they have done a hell of a job so far creating those positions (pity most of them are in other countries.) I have yet to see where giving tax breaks to the rich and allowing the kind of loopholes us working stiffs could never use actually helps us. I am all for a flat tax - Tax everyone the same, get rid of the IRS for normal people, and dump all the loopholes and such. When I hear some credible ideas I will be more than happy to listen. I hear "smaller government" but nothing more of how or what I hear "lower taxes", yeah, but on who? I hear a lot of......................nothing really. The problem is, it is very difficult to unseat a sitting president. It's like the home field advantage. In recent memory (if it serves me correctly), only Carter and Bush Sr. were one-termers. (I don't count Nixon or Ford, or Kennedy - I am talking about actual presidencies that were complete and re-election was sought.) If you want to sway the moderates like Pete and I, which is who would win the election for you, you need to say something worth listening to. Something tangible, something credible, something people can believe in. Not the simple rhetoric of hate and pettiness. Until then I am firmly on the fence. I hate Obama and despise a lot of what he has done. He is way too far left for my taste, but I see an equally great evil on the far right and Bachmann and Perry, to name a couple, sit firmly in that niche. If that's what I have to choose between - Obama and Bachmann or Perry - shit, I have no idea who to go with. It's like deciding between being shot or stabbed I hear "smaller government" but nothing more of how or what -------------------------------------------------------- - eliminate the IRS & install a flat tax, or a thousand other proposed less corrupted tax systems... the IRS is the most corrupted thing in the United States, and "rich people" escape more taxes via the IRS than they would with just about ANY other system - Repeal Obamacare in it's entirety - eliminate the labor-union-owned Dept of Education - and let the states, localities, and citizens control education - reduce the excessive number of EXTREMELY redundant federal agencies ( too many to list here, but I can if requested) - cut EVERY federal dept's budget by 10% across the board - pass a balanced budget amendment to reduce the temptation for grinning politicians to create agencies JUST to give bureaucrats, lobbyists, & campaign donors cushy & high-paying Federal "czar" jobs. I hear "lower taxes", yeah, but on who? -------------------------------------------------------- How about lowering taxes on **EVERYBODY** You can do that when you cut spending, and the private sector and jobs will FLUORISH without so much cost burden, and cutting taxes CAN actually increase tax revenue, look up the "Laffer curve" I see an equally great evil on the far right and Bachmann and Perry -------------------------------------------------------- What "evils" do you see? Cutting spending, rolling back the illegally seized & un-Constitutional Federal power-grab, smacking Washington DC's corrupted nose out of our private & personal affairs? I see more "evil" in allowing a massive & deeply corrupted Federal gov't juggernaught & pandering/ lying politicians to take over our liberties & personal choices/decisions, than to take that power away from them. I'm not just being argumentative, my good friend..... I am asking seriously and trying to understand, what "great evil" or "threat" you see - just trying to understand.

"I want to see plans", "I want to see actions". See, that's what I'm talking about.... that's the POINT. You just don't get it. Your perspective is that the Federal government should be in charge of everything, should utterly CONTROL everything and everyone. That just isn't the way it works in America. Government is ***NOT*** "the boss", the people are. The Federal gov't has strictly limited powers, the STATES have the rest. I understand that may not be your cultural background or how you were raised & educated..... but that being the case, your frame of reference disallows you from understanding. There's certainly nothing wrong with that, but without stepping back and re-examining the factual basis of your understanding of American gov't, it's a moot point to even argue about it. It's like trying to explain what hot, dry, desert sand is like.... to a fish on the bottom of a deep arctic ocean. I'll respectfully try one more time, and that's it. The Constitution of the United States gives a VERY strict and limited role/authority to the Federal Gov't. It is basically granted powers to provide for the common defense, protect our sovereignty, negotiate foreign treaties, mint currency, oversee the states' adherence to the Constitution, and to collect taxes. And that is really about it. Everything else... EVERYTHING ELSE - falls back to the states. 10th Amendment says CLEARLY: (quote) "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Our country is NOT based on a monarchy, dictatorship, a Politburo, communism, socialism, plutocracy, oligarchy, theocracy, or tribalism.... it is based on Federalism - which means it is a collection of individual states, in which the Federal gov't has strictly limited powers, and ALL other powers fall back to the individual STATES and the people. Which means the Federal gov't does **NOT** have the Constitutional authority to tell me which cars I can/ can't drive, what foods I can/can't eat, how much electricity or gas I can/can't use, where I can/can't live, what kind of light bulbs I am allowed to own, force me to buy health insurance, and ten thousand other restrictions that they have NO authority to do. Now arguably, states CAN do most of these things. But what is inarguable, is that the Fedreal gov't can NOT. Individual states are much more under the direct control of the voters, which is WHY such things are allotted to the states - again, reference the 10th Amendment's crystal clear words. The Federal gov't/ Washington DC is basically now 100% controlled by lobbyists, a heavily biased media, immensely wealthy power-brokers, and obedient slavish bureaucrats. Washington DC is a sewer of corruption and lies, and it is tearing the country to shreds. If you put that much power & money into the hands of so few, that's what happens EVERY TIME. Unfortunately, that is human nature. Which is EXACTLY why the Constitution was written the way it was. Yep, those Founding Fathers knew EXACTLY what they were doing, when they wrote the Constitution the very specific way they did. Our point is, that the Federal gov't has WAY superceded it's specifically granted Constitutional powers. The VERY FIRST sentence in the body of the United States Constitution states clearly: (and I QUOTE) "ALL legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." (unquote) Yet we currently have well over a HUNDRED Federal agencies that..... wait for it..... MAKE FEDERAL LAW. Federal laws that are made/enforced by *un-elected* bureacrats that have virtually NO accountability to voters, that are *appointed* by grinning politicians based on their political debts & cronyism. See the direct contradiction? I'll break it down to simpler terms.... Laws & legislation are being "passed", by entitites OTHER than the Congress, which directly contradicts THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE OF THE CONSTITUTION. You are arguing about what the Federal gov't should/ shouldn't be doing (based on your own personal opinions & feelings).... we are telling you what the Federal gov't CAN/ CAN'T DO LEGALLY (based on the Constitution). The Constitution isn't an emotion or opinion, it is an ink-on-paper legal document. Re-Read the Constitution... I'm sure you have before, but do it again. Better yet, read the Articles of Confederation, which were essays written by the AUTHORS of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights - to clearly and unquestionably explain EXACTLY what they meant, when they wrote our Founding Documents. If you do so, you may understand our point better. If you have a good legal background, you may even end up agreeing. If you don't, then you will simply *never* understand what we are talking about, and will be forced to simply mock & ridicule, instead of making a cogent or contradictory point. You want to hear our "plan", want to see some "actions"? Fine: Our "plan" to get the Federal gov't the fuck out of our personal lives, take back the powers that they have illegally & un-Consitutionally SIEZED for themselves, and force them to honor & respect the crystal-clear intent & legalities of our Founding Documents. The "action" will be to get Obama & socialistic Progressives the hell out of office ASAP (if not sooner). I will go "wash my pussy" now..... but one thing I will NOT do, is wipe my ass with Constitution, nor will I allow anyone else to do so.

+10

Blackbart I didn't like Ron Paul's answer about the Iran nuke situation either...But his point was we have been meddling in others affairs too much...I still would like to see him as the front runner...He knows more about the Constitution and how the Federal Government was meant by our founding fathers to be run than anyone else running...As for Herman Cain's political experience or lack there of that's why I would like to see him as a VP on the ticket of who ever becomes the front runner...He would bring the business savy to the ticket to get this country back to work...A Romney/Bachman is probably what we will end up with...Although not my first choice it is a ticket that will beat Obama and as you say that is the most important thing right now... True that..... I am just being pragmatic. Cain needs to serve a term in the cabinet (Commerce Secretary maybe), and build up his bonafides in politics. Cain, Rand, and Bachman have bright futures. Perry maybe, and Chris Christie will be a force to be reckoned with. But we need to climb out of the hole we are in, before we start climbing the mountain.

hxtr i can agree with all that............. Well put you varmint. One note... look at Biden. A babbling stupid Fing idiot. Why I would not mind Herman Cain as Vice but I would def support Bachman. She has big ass balls compared to Palin Pete's sweet heart and she can debate her points with confidence. She so impressed me in the debate last night... or the other day now. Plus.... she is way hot. lol But hands down like you said.. Newt is the smartest one in the bunch. So either... Romney/Herman Romney/Bachman But I still love Ron Paul... but would love to see Rand Paul in our future. I like Rand... but just like Cain, he needs to get a little more experience before jumping into the wolf's den of Washington DC & the Democrat media. Rand needs to marinate & get more footing in Congress (there is most certainly a future for him), and Cain would best serve the country by advising our next President on how economics/ capitalism actually works. My personal favorite is Newt, the man is a friggin' genius.... he is one of the smartest men in all of DC. But he comes off like a nutty professor sometimes, I think his intellect often gets ahead of his judgement. Unfortunately, I think Ron destroyed any chances with that Iran answer.

Blackbart Ron Paul for President Herman Cain for Vice President... Being a Libertarian, I have always kinda liked Paul. But in the Republican debate the other night, his answer basically saying "let Iran have nukes, everybody else has them" was a loser. A bad one. That will come back to haunt him when he gets to the more populous & influential states. I like 90% of what Paul says & stands for.... but that Iran answer *really* turned me off, and will do the same for many/most defense-minded Republicans. I understand the points of non-intervention in other countries' affairs, and other nations having nukes... but they aren't outright, *self-admitted* terrorist states like Iran is. If/ when Iran gets a nuke, it WILL be used, and the world will change for the worse. He took it a little too far. Cain is an extremely intelligent man, and I really like his economic prowess. But he is a political novice, still has a tendency to gaffe, and the liberal media & DC political machine would eat him alive. I see him getting a Cabinet or economic advisory position to learn the trade better. He is still young enough to run again later, but as we saw with Obama - the White House is no place for on-the-job-training. Gingrich is the smartest one of the bunch, but he is a bit quirky and I don't believe electable. Bachman is a seasoned veteran of Congress & spent a few years as a Federal Tax Litigation Prosecutor, so she knows the system. She is smarter than Palin, has more kids, has more experience, and is a fierce "Mama Grizzly" in her own right. And the liberal media has unfairly demonized Palin fairly effectively, but Backman handles that better... and the left really hurt their own "tolerance" credibility in destroying Palin - which opens the door for a female candidate. Pawlenty & Perry are pretty good, but not ready for "prime-time" just yet. The rest, besides Romney, are "also-rans". Romney is a bit "centrist" for me.... but remember, the Independent vote is what is going to win/ lose the election. Also remember that the next President must be a President for ALL the people. Bush was President for the right-most 40% of America. Obama has been President for the left-most 10% of America. Extremists don't make for good Presidents. And I believe that another extremist President will only make the dangerous divide even worse, which hurts ALL of us, including the rest of the world. I toyed with the idea of supporting a Bachman/ Cain ticket.... but in honesty, I realized that it was because it would simply humiliate liberals/ Democrat party, to take away both the race card & sex card. Without the race/ sex cards, Democrats would be forced to run on their record, and would humiliate themselves doing so. But this isn't about humiliating the other side, it is about getting a better President than what we have now. I truly care about America, and I have to correct myself from indulging in the slanderous hate-fiesta, that Progressives have created. Priority #1 is getting Obama the hell out of office. He is an utter failure in nearly every measurable way, like it or not. History will decide if he is the worst President in history... but he is on a good path towards that. Acknowledging that things could change, at this point I am looking at a Romney/Bachman ticket. Romney because he is the most "centrist" candidate running (and the best chance to get Independent votes & send Obama's sorry ass packing back to Chicago), and Bachman because she is a sharp, effective, rigorous conservative. Partisan horseshit aside, the MOST important thing at this point is replacing Obama. ANYONE would be better, but let's remember that the President is President for ALL the people, and let's just take the safest, most pragmatic route to improving the country and our horrid state of politics as they are now. Another Obama term WOULD be an economic holocost, and I am not confident we would survive that. Sometimes I choke a little bit with Romney, but Obama makes me puke. Sometimes you have to settle for less than you want, to avoid all-out disaster. And another Obama term WOULD be an all-out disaster for the country I love.

It will be interesting. There is bad blood between Perry & the Bushes, and also with Mike Huckabee. Which isn't good for Perry. Perry has blamed Bush for some problems in Texas that he couldn't fix (imagine THAT). Perry & Huckabee were very close friends/ allies & worked together extensively, until Perry turned on Huckabee and broke a commitment at the last second in 2008, to endorse McCain instead of Huckabee - which hurt Huckabee's chances badly in the primaries and pissed him off (which I don't blame him for). Bush still has a good deal of power in the Republican party, and Huckabee is a very popular & well-liked man in conservative circles and has a show on FoxNews. I like Perry OK, but he has made a few "not-so-astute" political moves. As Nick said, he did make a mistake in even mentioning "secession".... of course it was WAY overblown by the liberal 98% of the mainstream media... but it didn't show real good political judgement. I also think he emphasises his religion too much. Now I am with him on that personally, but the Republican candidate will ALREADY have most of the "religious right's" votes in the can - he needs to focus more on getting the critical "independent" votes which will decide the next President. We *all* know that the liberal mainstream media is going to SHRED the Republican candidate every chance they get, I don't know if Perry has learned how to avoid the traps just yet, that ANY republican candidate will be faced with. Granted, he IS very good at local politics...... but national politics & the extremely biased liberal mainstream media takes more skill to navigate through. The more the merrier, but at this point I'd say it is Romney's nomination unless he implodes. From the way most of the candidates avoided attacking Romney directly in the Republican debate the other night, I'd say that Bachman & Pawlenty are now running for VP, and I think Perry might be wise to do the same. For what it's worth, Romney wouldn't be my first choice, but he seems to be the best overall chance to send Obama back to the union mafia toilet in Chicago, from where he came.

Windows XP or 7 ?

Word!

Somebody sent me these links, laughed my ass off. Submitted for your enjoyment...