[TheRealVille]

This should make Hillary very happy. Kentucky's version of Sarah Palin is the frontrunner for the 2016 Presidential election at this point. :yum:

(CNN) - Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky won the presidential straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Saturday. Paul won with 25% of the vote and finished slightly ahead of Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida. In third place was former senator and presidential candidate Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania.

Nearly 3,000 votes were cast by attendees at the three-day conference held at a hotel just outside of Washington. The straw poll is considered one way to gauge where the conservative base stands on potential Republican nominees. The ballot included 23 Republicans with a national political profile as well as spots for write-ins and "undecided."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/201...traw-poll/

[WideMiddle03]

looks like somebody is mad today
because the amount of his well fair benefits was lowered
rand paul tells is like it is
paul 2016

[TheRealVille]

^ :biglmao:

[RunItUpTheGut]

Im not sure why you would post election material.
Obama will have this country completely destroyed by 2016.
There will be no elections, just militias and rebel armys.

[the other guy]

Based on your post I think you know very little about senator Paul. As for Palin the woman on Saturday night live was a comedian not the real Palin.

While on Rand Paul do you think drones should be used on American citizens on American soil? I know if they're a terriosts but who decides?

And based on your post about drug laws wouldn't a libiterian leaning republican be to your liking?

[TheRealVille]

Based on your post I think you know very little about senator Paul. As for Palin the woman on Saturday night live was a comedian not the real Palin.

While on Rand Paul do you think drones should be used on American citizens on American soil? I know if they're a terriosts but who decides?

And based on your post about drug laws wouldn't a libiterian leaning republican be to your liking?

If you had watched any of the CPAC, you would see that the real Palin isn't far removed from the SNL character. All Palin does is a bunch of rehearsed "one-liners". She is an idiot, and a lot of the higher republicans see it. If you watch the news, you would see that they want so bad for her to just go away before she hurts the party anymore that it is.

Are you meaning let the states decide on marijuana laws? Yea, that's laughable.

[WideRight05]

If you had watched any of the CPAC, you would see that the real Palin isn't far removed from the SNL character. All Palin does is a bunch of rehearsed "one-liners". She is an idiot, and a lot of the higher republicans see it. If you watch the news, you would see that they want so bad for her to just go away before she hurts the party anymore that it is.

Are you meaning let the states decide on marijuana laws? Yea, that's laughable.

:biglmao:

[TheRealThing]

If you had watched any of the CPAC, you would see that the real Palin isn't far removed from the SNL character. All Palin does is a bunch of rehearsed "one-liners". She is an idiot, and a lot of the higher republicans see it. If you watch the news, you would see that they want so bad for her to just go away before she hurts the party anymore that it is.

Are you meaning let the states decide on marijuana laws? Yea, that's laughable.

What's laughable is your failure to understand that the states are sovereign entities according to the US constitution.

[TheRealVille]

^ That can't deny the rights of people according to the constitution, or any amendments to it.

[TheRealThing]

^ That can't deny the rights of people according to the constitution, or any amendments to it.

Staying on topic is tough when you're blowing smoke isn't it? The people don't have the option to redefine nearly 240 years of established juris prudence in the light of some social fad like liberalism. We have the record to go by. I know it's a bane to your existence and liberals are busy propagandizing it from the minds of Americans. But, we do have it and those of us familiar with it won't be talked out of it by your ilk. So, do you want to talk about the liberal agenda or state sovereignty? I'm familiar with both. :biggrin:

Returning to an on topic statement, the fact that the states are to remain SOVEREIGN is integral to our nation's history and the founding documents.

[TheRealVille]

Staying on topic is tough when you're blowing smoke isn't it? The people don't have the option to redefine nearly 240 years of established juris prudence in the light of some social fad like liberalism. We have the record to go by. I know it's a bane to your existence and liberals are busy propagandizing it from the minds of Americans. But, we do have it and those of us familiar with it won't be talked out of it by your ilk. So, do you want to talk about the liberal agenda or state sovereignty? I'm familiar with both. :biggrin:

Returning to an on topic statement, the fact that the states are to remain SOVEREIGN is integral to our nation's history and the founding documents.

The President, Congress, and the Supreme court have the power to make decisions for the United States. Maybe you should actually read the Constitution, and look at what it says.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charter...nscription

[TheRealVille]

^ I take it you against any new amendment, since you are bringing up 240 years of jurist prudence? When should the have the amendments to the Constitution stopped?

[TheRealThing]

The President, Congress, and the Supreme court have the power to make decisions for the United States.

Just cause you say so, right RV? The SCOTUS has overstepped their bounds of few times . Even the President has to use the courts to over rule governors and state legislatures. He isn't a monarch. As for Congress, it ain't got jack to say about state sovereignty. (you might want to brush up on the 10th amendment before you go off half cocked)

[TheRealThing]

^ I take it you against any new amendment, since you are bringing up 240 years of jurist prudence? When should the have the amendments to the Constitution stopped?

:biglmao: About the time they got to the Johnson County line.

[WideMiddle03]

If you had watched any of the CPAC, you would see that the real Palin isn't far removed from the SNL character. All Palin does is a bunch of rehearsed "one-liners". She is an idiot, and a lot of the higher republicans see it. If you watch the news, you would see that they want so bad for her to just go away before she hurts the party anymore that it is.

Are you meaning let the states decide on marijuana laws? Yea, that's laughable.

sarah palan isn't the president
she doesn't occupy a seat in the senate
or the houes
i can understand you're possession with her though
she is a pretty lady
you claimed that you didnt make fun of people for their opinions
you should brush up on state laws
you're post is laughable

[TheRealVille]

Just cause you say so, right RV? The SCOTUS has overstepped their bounds of few times . Even the President has to use the courts to over rule governors and state legislatures. He isn't a monarch. As for Congress, it ain't got jack to say about state sovereignty. (you might want to brush up on the 10th amendment before you go off half cocked)

No, because the Constitution says so.

Article. I.

Section. 1.

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.


Article. II.

Section. 1.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:



Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people.

Or it's amendments that the lawmakers make. If you want to cite the 10th, it was lawmakers that made that amendment, they can make more amendments.

[TheRealThing]

No, because the Constitution says so.





Or it's amendments that the lawmakers make. If you want to cite the 10th, it was lawmakers that made that amendment, they can make more amendments.

This isn't the first time you've shown a less than novice understanding of civics and American governance. I'm going to assume that unless and until lawmakers do overturn the 10th amendment, we are safe in a strict interpretation and adherence. That being the inevitable case, States are Sovereign according to the US Constitution. Like I said, the constitution is admittedly standing in the way of the liberal agenda, hence the liberal ongoing legal assault on it in this land's court rooms every day.

Organizations such as the ACLU, All of Us or None, Alliance for Justice, America Coming Together, America Votes, America's Voice, American Family Voices (an odd name for an organization whose only function is to coordinate media campaigns charging republicans with wrongdoing, wouldn't you say?) The list is almost endless but, for those who would like to take even a cursory glance of the enormity of the anti-republican, anti-traditional American propagandist thrust of today's liberal, here's a LINK --- http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewS...sp?id=1237 The phrase 'wolf in sheep's clothing' comes to mind with the warm and fuzzy names liberals give these anti-American organizations.

[RunItUpTheGut]

I seen today that Clinton has announced her support for gay marriage.

I just dont understand why if your a democrat you must come out and say you support two guys doing the nasty. I fully believe that she doesnt support this, but her party is more important than her faith.

Its redicolous how far some politicians go.

[vector]

boy I sure hope rand paul gets the nomination :biglmao:

[WideMiddle03]

boy I sure hope rand paul gets the nomination :biglmao:

boy i sure hope you get the nomination for the dems :biglmao:

[vector]

boy i sure hope you get the nomination for the dems :biglmao:

not running da nicker:

[the other guy]

I seen today that Clinton has announced her support for gay marriage.

I just dont understand why if your a democrat you must come out and say you support two guys doing the nasty. I fully believe that she doesnt support this, but her party is more important than her faith.

Its redicolous how far some politicians go.

I really don't care but a lot of people who hate anything about gays will still vote for clinton because she's a democrat. They will then say they didn't know she was for that. fact is they are not smart enough to make up their own mind so they vote party line.

[RunItUpTheGut]

I really don't care but a lot of people who hate anything about gays will still vote for clinton because she's a democrat. They will then say they didn't know she was for that. fact is they are not smart enough to make up their own mind so they vote party line.

True, but i was aiming for a higher point.
Repubs do the same thing. Just last week a Repub senator came out and supported gay marriage because his son announced he was gay.
Obviously this senator never had a problem with it in the first place so he lied about being against it for years.

Its not just the dems, both parties have gone to extreme one way or the other.
There are simply no original politicians left.
The people vote, not the other politicians. I dont understand why someone cant just speak there true beliefs without getitng hammered for it. If you do support something fine, if your against it, fine, but dont be in favor or oppose something just because your party doesnt.

[the other guy]

Start a post about a subject.
Someone replies to post about subject
Have six more replies and never mention your subject again

[TheRealVille]

Start a post about a subject.
Someone replies to post about subject
Have six more replies and never mention your subject again

What more can be said about Rand Paul, and Sarah Palin? They are both blooming idiots, and the democrats, and Hillary would love for either to run for President. The other guy, and TRT changed the subect, and I just tried to veer away from them.

[RunItUpTheGut]

If Paul runs, he'll get beat, its that simple.

We have very few choices in the republican party to make a run, and its alarming considering the job the dems have done with the eeconomy over the last 5 years.
The traditional republicans are just not going to pick up the wing votes with the social problems that are the main focus of today.

[the other guy]

We all know that they're no stupid democrats. just ask Joe Biden

[WideMiddle03]

not running da nicker:

why not
we would accomplish more with you than with obama
it takes four years to try to unscramble one of you're posts
that alone would be more of an accomplishment than what were getting with our current adminstratien

I seen today that Clinton has announced her support for gay marriage.

I just dont understand why if your a democrat you must come out and say you support two guys doing the nasty. I fully believe that she doesnt support this, but her party is more important than her faith.

Its redicolous how far some politicians go.

amazing, used 2 be she was for civil unions but not gay marriage

republicans flip-flop

democrats "evolve" :biglmao:

[the other guy]

What more can be said about Rand Paul, and Sarah Palin? They are both blooming idiots, and the democrats, and Hillary would love for either to run for President. The other guy, and TRT changed the subect, and I just tried to veer away from them.

I never changed the subject you always do. I still say you know nothing about Paul. As for Palin she is in it for the money it brings her nothing more. Keep in mind Karl Rove doesn't like Paul I think that's a good thing. Can Paul win? No but neither could a conservative democrat.

[TheRealVille]

I never changed the subject you always do. I still say you know nothing about Paul. As for Palin she is in it for the money it brings her nothing more. Keep in mind Karl Rove doesn't like Paul I think that's a good thing. Can Paul win? No but neither could a conservative democrat.

Yes, you did. Read your post, you brought up the drug laws part of the discussion, which led to TRT's post about my constitutional knowledge.