BGFalcons82;1068964 wrote:I love some red meat courtesy of Allen West on a Sunday afternoon - http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=o8YDnd1Yoyk#!

I would gather by the fact Paul recieves more support from the militarythan any of the other candidates that the people who fight these wars dont agree with you

Of those who identified themselves as veterans or active duty military, Ron Paul received only 12 percent of the vote. Newt Gingrich, the clear winner of the primary, received 39 percent of the military vote, followed by Romney at 32 percent. Even Rick Santorum received more votes from the military than Paul.

HitsRus;1069623 wrote:http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/ron-paul-s-military-support-awol-south-carolina-exit-polls-say

I would gather by the exit polls from South Carolina...which has more than it's share of military bases that the people who fight these wars don't necessarily agree with you either.

majorspark;1069694 wrote:How do you expect them to vote? Any differently than the seniors fearing their social security checks will be taken away?

"Tens of thousands of veterans live here, and countless civilians depend on an economy powered by the armed services"

I found this quote in the article quite telling. This is not what the framers envisioned the armed forces would become. They would be scared ****less of it. An economy empowered by the armed services. God save the republic.

Think about why they chose to place in the Bill of Rights:
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in manner to be prescribed by law

They were not being unpatriotic by giving the individual the right to cast out the military. Just a righteous fear of big military power. Especially at the federal level. I ask you this. Is there a difference with an economic fear of the military? Just property over life? Are we cool with that? We conservatives rail about the economic fear the left portrays when we propose any change to reform or scale back any federal domestic program. Lets not do the same. Think about it.

I have gone at it with the ronulans several times reguarding our constitutional role in the world. There is no doubt we have strayed outside of it at times. I have laid out my disagreements with them in principle. The arguement is becoming mute as our fiscal situation becomes increasingly unsound.

QuakerOats;1070447 wrote:http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/207439-federal-workers-get-16-percent-more-than-private-sector-cbo-finds


Change we can believe in .......

QuakerOats;1071414 wrote: November '12 cannot arrive soon enough.

CBO’s baseline shoot up by more than 30 percent,” said CBO, “mostly because of the recent or scheduled expirations of tax provisions, such as those that lower income tax rates and limit the reach of the alternative minimum tax (AMT)

Devils Advocate;1071422 wrote:I agree. When BHO is elected for his second term, I am sure that your head will explode.

Bigdogg;1072011 wrote:I ran across this interesting analysis of the budget deficit. Hope Belly enjoys it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/ezra-klein-doing-the-math-on-obamas-deficits/2012/01/31/gIQAnRs7fQ_story.html

jmog;1072261 wrote:I love how they extend out Obama for 8 years based on only the current laws that has passed in his 3 years. Nothing said about the next 5 years.

Oh yeah, and you won't find many conservatives that was happy with Bush's spending habits either.

BoatShoes;1072359 wrote:Because even without a fiscal stimulus the government is going to run a deficit in a depressed economy and that's why the budget needs to be balanced over the business cycle. When u have huge deficits during "good times" as we did the deficits will explode during the bad times.

BoatShoes;1072350 wrote:You don't see ANY conservatives (aside from the Paul people who "real conservatives "don't align with) saying that George w. Bush was a socialist tyrant who will bring america to her knees because of his policies and suing his administration in federal court.

queencitybuckeye;1072477 wrote:Interesting that the same numbers for Bush would yield a box 2-3 times larger than for Obama. I'm sure it wasn't meant to mislead. :rolleyes: