Posted on 12/21/2011 11:15:36 AM PST by Kaslin
For those who do not know, Cynthia McKinney is a certifiably insane anti-American anti-Semitic lunatic. She first came to widespread public attention when she was arrested for punching out a member of the capitol police who tried to stop her when she wasn’t wearing her pin. Cynthia McKinney is so crazy that she got defeated in a primary by a guy who thought Guam might tip over and capsize. McKinney was once arrested by the Israelis while trying to give aid to Hamas and penned a bizarre anti-American and anti-Israeli screed. See more of her anti-Americanism here.
*******************************
Not that I needed any more proof that Ron Paul is a bitter old coot, but this is so far over the top that I am stunned.
This is nothing but promises. He as a congressman should know a presidential candidate can promise the voters anything just to get elected. Delivering the promises is another thing, unless you can shove it down the people’s throat, like that arrogant lazy, lying pos occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and his accommodating House and Senate did with his OmamaCare bill while shutting the other side out
You really believe there was no difference between Al Gore and GWBush?
Are you also unable to distinguish between chocolate and vanilla?
No wonder he endorsed her. They’re two of a kind.
The "Constitution Party" (formerly the "Taxpayers' Party") is a paleocon, JBS-front organization that rejected Alan Keyes because he was pro-Israel. They subscribe to a form of Rushdoonian "reconstructionism" that is just short of "Americo-Israelism."
Whatever one thinks of "neocons" and "mainstream conservatives," what kind of mind endorses Baldwin, McKinney, Nader, and Barr simultaneously?
Wait a minute, that is not Pol Pot, that is Menachem Begin of Israel
Impeachment requires 2/3rds of the senate, which has always been its stumbling block. And while if a sitting president tried to do it all at once, the house might impeach, were he to just take on a big chunk at a time, the odds are slim to none.
Arnold made the mistake of taking on four big constituencies at once, and lost a referendum, but it was a tactical loss, not a strategic loss. He just bit off more than he could chew.
A long time saying in Washington was that only a quarter of every dollar appropriated to an agency actually goes to its mission. While a president cannot make it more efficient, he can make it less efficient, to the point where that agency accomplishes nothing, as all its money is used for other things.
Starting from Marbury v. Madison, and the president’s refusal to obey a court order, the presidency has become increasingly “imperial”, culminating with the horribly unconstitutional presidential signing statement. And while I truly abhor this practice, in that it usurps both legislative and judicial powers, congress has not intervened to stop it.
And using such powers, if the president does not want an executive branch function to be carried out, it isn’t.
But all of this assumes a “rogue” president, without congressional allies, and this is highly unlikely. Were such a president to be elected, he would almost certainly have a strong bloc to carry out his schemes.
Importantly their purpose as a bloc is not to promulgate, but to deconstruct, to stop what is bad, not to start anew.
That aint Pol Pot. That’s Menachem Begin.
Of course if Obama were to impound 50% of the Defense Department budget to help cut the deficit you'd scream and howl. (I would too, but unlike you I'm in favor of following the Constitution and the law.) But hey, he'd be cutting what he as President considers unimportant, the useless fat.
Since you're willing to dump the Constitution for a shortcut when it becomes convenient I consider further discussion with you pointless.
If you want to take the country over the cliff, fine, but the president swears to uphold and defend the constitution, not unconstitutional appropriations passed by congress, or blocs of greedy constituents more concerned with their own largess than the prosperity of the nation.
How a president goes about this is up to him, but he MUST kill off a huge chunk of the federal government, and he MUST slash the federal budget.
You fret about defense being slashed, but the cruel truth is that they are horribly bloated just like every other part of the government. They are deployed to 100 nations, though they only need to be deployed in half a dozen places.
It is impossible to build a warship on time and on budget, because every flag officer in the Navy wants his own personal changes to the design *while* it’s being built, just for pure ego gratification.
The US spends the vast majority of defense monies spent in the world, so why are we just barely staying ahead of the threat? It’s called egregious waste.
Why does America have 16 major intelligence agencies, and over 100 federal police agencies, and even non-police agencies like the Department of Education are being authorized SWAT teams? It is insane.
Yet you fret that the president would somehow break the law by eradicating huge amounts of this worthless and authoritarian bloat.
I think your arguments have failed.
With respect to growing government, not a whole LOT of difference. Maybe it grew SLOWER under Bush II, but grow it did. Is that what someone calling himself “conservative” should want???
On that one point, I can agree with you.
But do you really believe Al Gore would have cut taxes?
Do you really believe Al Gore would have appointed John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court?
Do you really believe Al Gore would've responded to 9/11 as George W. Bush did?
Do you really believe that Al Gore would've ignored the Kyoto Treaty as George W. Bush did?
Do you really believe that Al Gore is as honorable a man and as patriotic American as George W. Bush?
Equating the two is absurd. There was a world of difference. All in Bush's favor.
Posing with a former KKK Grand Wizard because he was a campaign contributor isn't pandering to a vile, racist piece of trash?
Name one politicians running for office that would agree to have his or her picture taken with David Duke. Black held the same position as Duke did.
I know he does. His position on Iran and Israel are solely rooted in the same sort of antisemitism that Black espouses. His ignorant comments are blacks are the same as the racists at Black's website espouse.
You strike out. That's Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin there with the Gipper.
[ His ignorant comments are blacks are the same as the racists at Black’s website espouse. ]
They pretty much are.. or am I wrong..
The democrats (including most blacks) have ruined the black american culture..
But then so have most Jews..
Not all jews or all blacks... just most of them..
Liberals (like you) morph referencing some blacks into meaning ALL blacks.. same with jews..
You do know most black babies have less a chance of being born than aborted..
And a black baby being raised in a family with a mother and father IS RARE.. you do know that right?..
The black Congressional Caucus does more damage (to whites and blacks) than all the KKK ever did from the beginning to this day..
You must be looking at Ron Paul thru Shades or Kosher glasses..
I doubt RP despises Blacks or Jews.. no more than he does stealth conservative traitors..
You know.. or other kinds of Progressive people into Sedition.. like most blacks, jews and Rinos..
Are you a Rino?..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.