THE POLITICAL ARENA!!! Political Gladiators Inside!!

[Banned]

Needes arise, they are constitutional.

Bill's new interpretation of the Constitution. As soon as a need arises, whatever the government does is Constitutional. Period. No questions asked.

[Hawk]

Why don't you discuss everything I wrote. Are you afraid ?

Because you don't. You ignore most of my questions, yet you cry like a baby when your stupid points are not all addressed. Your points are so asinine that it would make me physically ill to actually address them all.

If you want to start answering questions, look at a question I asked you about Obama lying about knowing about Fast and Furious. He said he did not know about till after May, like Holder said. Yet CNN has him on tape talking about it in March. He lied Bill, and American citizens died from those guns. Did you thorough investigation discover this?

If it is true it pisses me off.

[Hawk]

Needes arise, they are constitutional.

Bill's new interpretation of the Constitution. As soon as a need arises, whatever the government does is Constitutional. Period. No questions asked.

Not at all. I described the way Jeffereson, your hero did it.

[Hawk]

Am I to guess that raced based discrimination with Libertarianism is not a flaw in your mind Joe ?

Face it Joe, you pick and choose from my posts because you are afraid to admit what you think.

[Banned]

Am I to guess that raced based discrimination with Libertarianism is not a flaw in your mind Joe ?

Too asinine to answer, but here: It will not make more or less racists than there are now.

[Hawk]

Am I to guess that raced based discrimination with Libertarianism is not a flaw in your mind Joe ?

Too asinine to answer, but here: It will not make more or less racists than there are now.

So damn stupid. Not more racists, just allow the one that exist to race discriminate. You avoided it AGAIN.


What a chicken!

[Banned]

Do you somehow think racists don't discriminate now? Are you that naive?

[Banned]

Bill, here is a question to you in the same way you ask questions to me.

Do you like this government because you are a Nazi or just a socialist?

Are you afraid to answer?

[Hawk]

Do you somehow think racists don't discriminate now? Are you that naive?

It's against the law, so it's a lot less. I don't see any signs out that say, "No Blacks, or no Jews, or no Whites, or no Latinos Etc. allowed like you would allow.

[Banned]

Do you somehow think racists don't discriminate now? Are you that naive?

It's against the law, so it's a lot less. I don't see any signs out that say, "No Blacks, or no Jews, or no Whites, or no Latinos Etc. allowed like you would allow.

So they are not discriminating in other ways? Are the Black Panthers meetings open to skinheads?

Bill, you may not know this but some people do not follow the law.

[Banned]

Waiting for your investigation about Obama lying about Fast and Furious.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46870

[Hawk]

Bill, here is a question to you in the same way you ask questions to me.

Do you like this government because you are a Nazi or just a socialist?

Are you afraid to answer?

I'm not a Nazi, never claimed to be. I'm not a socialist, never claimed to be one (only claimed to like some social programs in our capitalist society and I'd like to keep it that way).

You on the other hand ARE a Libertarian and have claimed to be one. Liberterians ARE for allowing race based discrimination. Sine you don't see race discrimination as wrong I guess you are just afraid to say you want it like the rest of the Libertarian principals.

[Hawk]

Waiting for your investigation about Obama lying about Fast and Furious.

What the hell do you want from me. I said if it's true it pisses me off. I haven't heard he has been convicted have you ?

[Hawk]

Do you somehow think racists don't discriminate now? Are you that naive?

It's against the law, so it's a lot less. I don't see any signs out that say, "No Blacks, or no Jews, or no Whites, or no Latinos Etc. allowed like you would allow.

So they are not discriminating in other ways? Are the Black Panthers meetings open to skinheads?

Bill, you may not know this but some people do not follow the law.

Show me any private business OPEN TO THE PUBLIC that does not allow a given race to enter. Not private clubs...

[Banned]

Bill, here is a question to you in the same way you ask questions to me.

Do you like this government because you are a Nazi or just a socialist?

Are you afraid to answer?

I'm not a Nazi, never claimed to be. I'm not a socialist, never claimed to be one (only claimed to like some social programs in our capitalist society and I'd like to keep it that way).

You on the other hand ARE a Libertarian and have claimed to be one. Liberterians ARE for allowing race based discrimination. Sine you don't see race discrimination as wrong I guess you are just afraid to say you want it like the rest of the Libertarian principals.

Bill, you love this socialist government, you defend it like a religion. You also love its authoritarian power, like stealing money from people who earn money. The Nazis were socialists who gained total authoritarian power over the people. You are getting very close even if you don't like the comparison. This government discriminated against those who work and make money. You love that too. You can say it out loud, you are a socialist and love a Nazi like government.

[Banned]

It's against the law, so it's a lot less. I don't see any signs out that say, "No Blacks, or no Jews, or no Whites, or no Latinos Etc. allowed like you would allow.

So they are not discriminating in other ways? Are the Black Panthers meetings open to skinheads?

Bill, you may not know this but some people do not follow the law.

Show me any private business OPEN TO THE PUBLIC that does not allow a given race to enter. Not private clubs...

So you are dumb enough to think that sign erases racism?

[Hawk]

So they are not discriminating in other ways? Are the Black Panthers meetings open to skinheads?

Bill, you may not know this but some people do not follow the law.

Show me any private business OPEN TO THE PUBLIC that does not allow a given race to enter. Not private clubs...

So you are dumb enough to think that sign erases racism?

I repeat, show me a public place that keeps out a given race.

[Hawk]

Issa Sought ‘Yes’ on Loan Request
Posted on October 10, 2011

Rep. Darrell Issa, who has accused the administration of “political interference” to benefit a solar energy company, has falsely claimed that a letter he wrote to the Energy Department on behalf of a California car maker merely requested a decision — “yes or no” — on the company’s loan application. In fact, the California Republican wrote to “express support” for the company’s loan to develop an electric car. He wrote that approval of the loan would “greatly assist a leading developer of electric vehicles in my district” and “promote domestic job creation throughout California as well as in other states.”

Issa, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, is leading the congressional investigation of the Department of Energy’s decision to provide a $535 million loan guarantee to Solyndra, a now-defunct California solar company. We wrote about Solyndra last week. Issa appeared Oct. 9 on “Fox News Sunday,” telling host Chris Wallace that “Solyndra is a story of political interference.” Wallace asked about letters Issa wrote to the Energy Department on behalf of companies seeking government loans — specifically one on behalf of Aptera Motors Inc., which is within Issa’s district.

Wallace: You are saying — you were saying in the case of Aptera, which is one of the companies, you’re saying to the federal Energy Department, “Give them a federal loan guarantee.”

Issa: Not give them a loan guarantee. Our letter actually recognized, and by the way, their loan has never processed. It expired without them getting it. What we were –

Wallace: I’m not saying you were successful. I’m just saying you tried.

Issa: But the request was, they have a loan application and would you please give them a yes or no — and that’s a big difference. A lot of loans went in and these people spent money processing and they never heard.

In the case of Aptera, Issa did not merely ask the Energy Department to “please give them a yes or no.” On Sept. 21, Bloomberg News wrote that Issa urged approval of the loan, and the Washington Post published a copy of the letter.

Issa, Jan. 14, 2010: I write to express my support of Aptera Motors’ application for a loan under the Department of Energy’s 136 Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Incentive Program (ATVMIP). Funding will allow Aptera to establish U.S. manufacturing facilities for the commercial production of its plug-in and hybrid electric cars. … Awarding this opportunity to Aptera Motors will greatly assist a leading developer of electric vehicles in my district. …

Aptera’s project will also promote domestic job creation throughout California as well as in other states. …

I urge you to give Aptera Motors’ Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Incentive Program funding application full consideration.

A day after those stories appeared, Issa chaired a committee hearing titled, “How Obama’s Green Energy Agenda is Killing Jobs.” At the hearing, Rep. John Tierney, a Massachusetts Democrat, quoted from Issa’s letter.

Tierney, Sept. 22, 2011: I noticed that our chairman, Mr. Issa, who talks about this being a job killer and backdoor corruption, himself wrote a letter to the secretary of the department. I’ll just quote from the first part. “I write to express my support of Aptera Motors’ application for a loan under the Department of Energy’s 136 Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Incentive Program (ATVMIP).” Later on there he says, “Aptera’s project will also promote domestic job creation.”

Issa did not respond to Tierney’s comment. We sent an email to Issa’s spokesman, but Columbus Day is a federal holiday and we did not hear back. If we do, we will update this item.

– Eugene Kiely

[Banned]

Ron Paul has the only plan to balance the budget.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/r ... e-america/

[Banned]

I repeat, show me a public place that keeps out a given race.

So a sign stops racism?

Can this magic sign also stop death and disease? How about poverty?

[Hawk]

Ron Paul was for Reagan before he was against him and was for him after he was against him. Huh ? What a slime ball.

Paul ‘Stood with Reagan,’ But Not Long
Posted on September 7, 2011

Ron Paul highlights his ties to Ronald Reagan in a web video, but fails to mention he disavowed Reagan's policies in 1987 — citing them as a reason for resigning from the Republican party that year.

In a letter of resignation to the chairman of the Republican National Committee in the spring of 1987, Paul wrote that "Reagan and the Republican Party have given us skyrocketing deficits, massive monetary inflation, indiscriminate military spending, irrational and unconstitutional foreign policy, zooming foreign aid, the exaltation of international banking and the attack on our personal liberties and privacies." Paul ran for president on the Libertarian ticket in 1988.

The Texas congressman, who returned to the GOP, and is now running a second time for its presidential nomination, recalls his early support for Reagan in the video.


The one-minute video — titled "Trust" — says Paul was one of only four members of Congress to support Reagan in 1976, when the Gipper ran against then-President Gerald Ford for the GOP nomination. It shows Reagan and Paul together smiling. Paul seeks to contrast his early support for Reagan with Texas Gov. Rick Perry's support for Al Gore in 1988. Perry was a Democrat at the time, but switched a year later to become a Republican. "Now," the ad says, "America must decide who to trust. Al Gore's Texas cheerleader or the one who stood with Reagan."

Paul didn't stand with Reagan for long. He says in his resignation letter that he became disillusioned with the party in Reagan's first year in office. Paul told the Christian Science Monitor in 1987 that it took about a month for him to realize that Reagan wouldn't be the conservative president that he had hoped for.

Christian Science Monitor, Sept. 29, 1987: ''A lot of people think we're doing great (economically), but it's all on borrowed money,'' says Paul. ''Ronald Reagan has given us a deficit 10 times greater than what we had with the Democrats.''

Paul, who has signed photos of Reagan and Vice-President George Bush in his office, says he was an early supporter of the President, but quickly became disillusioned. ''It didn't take me more than a month after 1981,'' he says, ''to realize there would be no changes.''

It wasn't just Reagan's domestic policies. Paul also opposed the president's foreign policies. For example, he attacked Reagan's decision to send U.S. troops to Honduras as "unconstitutional," calling the president "a bully boy in Central America" in a March 21, 1988, article by the Associated Press.

Paul told the Los Angeles Times in 1988, "I want to totally disassociate myself from the Reagan Administration."

Twenty years later, however, Paul once again associated himself with Reagan. As we wrote at that time, Paul used a Reagan quote and images in one of his TV ads in 2008 when he was running for the GOP presidential nomination. He has now come full circle, warning in his new web video that Perry "helped lead Al Gore's campaign to undo the Reagan Revolution" — the very revolution that Paul once disavowed.

Paul may have gone too far in describing Perry as a leader in Gore's 1988 campaign. Perry does not dispute that he endorsed Gore, but our friends at PolitiFact.com wrote that there's no evidence that Perry was a leader of his 1988 campaign. Tom Jurkovich, a Tennessee lawyer who served as Gore's Texas coordinator in 1988, told PolitiFact.com that Perry "wasn't highly involved in the campaign, however, and had zero operational responsibility."

– Eugene Kiely, with Scott Blackburn

[Hawk]

I repeat, show me a public place that keeps out a given race.

So a sign stops racism?

Can this magic sign also stop death and disease? How about poverty?

\
]

Show me a privately owned business open to the public that does not allow a given race. Just say you can't if you can't.

I know of places in Altoona that would prefer Blacks not enter. But they do and they do get served.

Silly boy. Racism is a state of mind. Race discrimination is against the law. A law you want removed.

[Hawk]

FactChecking Paul
Posted on May 20, 2011

Up next in our look at past claims made by the 2012 presidential candidates: Rep. Ron Paul. No stranger to presidential campaigns, the Texas Republican has made his share of factual flubs. Paul declared his 2012 candidacy May 13.

■He falsely claimed last December that the estate tax "especially harms small and family-owned businesses." But if the estate tax was returned to 2009 levels, less than 8 percent of estates taxed in 2011 would be family farms and businesses, according to the Tax Policy Center. The tax deal struck by President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans would affect 440 such estates, more than half of which are worth more than $20 million each. Paul also said that the estate tax was "double taxation." That's only the case for cash that had been taxed when it was earned as income. Investments, such as stocks, bonds and real estate, would not have been taxed before, if they had not been sold prior to the owner's death.
■He made the wild claim that "16,500 armed bureaucrats" from the IRS would enforce the mandate that everyone have health insurance. That figure came from a partisan analysis based on false assumptions. Plus, the IRS will mainly distribute tax credits, not enforce penalties. And "armed"? Very few, if any, new hires would actually carry guns. As of 2009, the IRS had only 2,725 (3 percent of all employees) who were "special agents," sworn law enforcement officers assigned to criminal cases and authorized to carry guns. The health care law also bans criminal penalties for those not abiding by the mandate.
■In the 2008 campaign, Paul pushed the bogus conspiracy theory that government bureaucrats and foreign corporations were plotting a "NAFTA Superhighway" and the creation of a North American Union with a single currency. It's all a myth.
■He also claimed in the last presidential race that the U.S. had a "$1 trillion foreign operation" to maintain "our empire." But his $1 trillion figure included all defense spending, plus half of NASA's funding, medical and retirement pay for veterans, the U.S. Border Patrol, airport security, the issuing of passports, cargo inspections, the FBI's counter-terrorism unit, and 92 percent of interest payments on the debt, among other items.
Paul's libertarian views have attracted a fervent following. He's running for president for the third time.

[Banned]

So you think all race discrimination is ended because of a sign?

What about Obama and Holder lying? That post did not address that question whatsoever.

[lonewolf]

The federal government vs. 50 state governments. For many things, one is better than 50 different ones.

I couldn't disagree with you more. 1 is better than 50 only for a few things.

A bunch of people smarter than you or me or Obama spent a lot of time, effort and compromise sorting those few things out. When they were done, they wrote them into the Constitution.

Then, along came a socialist who thought he knew better and, armed with both houses of Congress and the full force of the US military, extorted the Supreme Court into submission. That day, they threw the Constitution into the fire and we haven't had one since.

Now, we are paying for it. Wait! No! We aren't paying for it at all! Excuse my oversight. We, greedy, spoiled-rotten baby-boomers aren't paying for a damned thing. We are deferring the costs of our many failed social experiments on to later generations.

Do you know what that makes us baby-boomers? Nothing but sad, pathetic spoiled little BUMS.

Needs arise and so its constitutional? ROFLMAO...thats the most naive, silly bunch of spoiled-boomer mularkey I ever heard in a constitutional discussion.

Needes arise, they are constitutional. Just like the bank that Jefferson himself complained was unconstitutional when Washington was president. Then when Jefferson became president he realized it WAS a necessity. Then he was for it. he kept it before it bacame constitutional. Only later was it deemed constitutional. Get it ? That's how it works, always has since day one.

"Needs arise, so they are constitutional?" ROFLMAO! Where did you get that? Thats about the funniest and legally ignorant thing I ever read in any constitutional discussion anywhere, anytime.

There are several enumerations in the constitution that can justify a bank.

There is nothing that even remotely implies education, labor, resources, agriculture, housing, urban development, health, public assistance, energy (except maybe for defense)...the list goes on and on.

All that stuff was found unconstitutional in case after case until that one episode when FDR extorted the Supreme Court into a decision they did not want to make. The choice was either ripping a huge hole in the Constitution or completely destroying the Supreme Court. The Court chose to throw the Constitution on the fire to save itself. That is the ONLY reason why we have socialist programs at the federal level.

That one case opened the door to socialist programs and now, it seems that anything goes.

Get it? Thats why it works.

The phrase "general welfare" is not an enumeration.

Bums I tell you .... nothing but a generation of bums.