Does the Minot Nuclear bomber base go with them?

Nobody needs a nuclear non-proliferation treaty any more. Balance the budget at all costs.

Here is a great link:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Obama's goal to make it go to 2013 at least is political posturing completely on his part. I would like to see a plan that goes out 10 or 20 years and ties it to a balanced budget amendment and a total revamping of the tax code, much like the gang of 6 designed.

Minnesota would get rid of Michelle Bachmann, too.;)

Politicians who throw around the idea of constitutional amendments lose major points in my book. It's virtually impossible to amend the Constitution. It's not just an act of congress signed into law by the president, it requires 2/3s majority in BOTH houses and then goes to the individual states and must clear through 3/4s of them. That's 38 states that each have to approve the proposed amendment. It isn't easy. The equal rights amendment never made it through. Anything that is remotely political isn't going to make it. For example, think of the political climate in Arizona and the political climate in Massachusetts. There aren't too many issues that both states are going to get behind. That's the divide you have to bridge.

Politicians who talk about Constitutional amendments are just full of shit.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that they are "full of shit", well at least no more than the rest of them and Obama, now if you said they were all pretty much "full of shit", I would agree with you completely. The idea that we can't figure out a way to mandate a balanced budget through some process or the other does not mean that we can't explore ideas to address, this is just another idea in my book. But if this thing fails I predict Obama and a host of other politicans, both R's and D's, are going to go down in flames come 2012, as they should.

The problem is, when we dropkick them to the curb, are we going to end up with a bunch of fire-and-brimstone, punt women back to the stone age, elitist nutballs in power instead? Are there any actual sane people running for office? If not sane, then maybe ones that use actual facts to base their decisions on? Instead of deliberately skewing statistics by comparing apples to monkey balls?

I'm sick of the whole lot of them and that's saying a whole lot.

Well..... how does that differ from having the other extreme? Don't the voters make that decision?

Huh? :eyebrow:


I repeat, are there any sane people running for office...so the VOTERS CAN MAKE THE DECISION....?

Spexxxx - were those R or D congresses?
redo and resubmit please & thanks.

You could always sell Alaska back to the Russkies.

If you're that interested, do the leg work yourself. Bottom line is that the POTUS signed the bills into law.

Here, I just remembered that I have this bookmarked, for just such an emergency. Emergency, I say, boy!

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgov...division_2.htm

Correlate and draw causational conclusions at your leisure.

Thanks - I remember you (someone) posting that somewhere...
Quick glance looks like it was vastly a D majority in both the house and senate for most of them.

Sorry your quote:

sounds like a common rant about repulickin right-wing nuts... If that is not the case, my bad. If that is the case, again, how does that differ from the other extreme?