# Have to see



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

This is to good not to share it. I especially like the comments about the UN looking to Iran for guidance on the treatment's of women. Wow, what can I say. I have to ask you liberals: have you ever heard anything more ridiculous? Only evil minds could be so twisted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=XNUc8nuo7HI


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I don't think there are any liberals on here.

He is right about the UN......WE foot the bill and get kicked in the face. :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I don't think there are any liberals on here.


 

By national standards perhaps not.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

> I don't think there are any liberals on here.
> 
> By national standards perhaps not.


We're still waiting for a definition to see if there are any here or not. 

Every time we press them for details they get so confusing they start to sound like Ronald Reagan! I've asked several of them, several times to explain what "liberal" means to them....

...and I'm waiting.......

....and waiting.......... :shake:

But ya gotta chuckle at the thought of Iran setting the standard on womens' rights. What's next? Maybe getting Tiger Woods' thoughts on the secrets to a happy marriage? :wink:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Will be interesting to see what happens if and when a "no earmarks" bill is passed.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

KEN W said:


> Will be interesting to see what happens if and when a "no earmarks" bill is passed.


They better follow through or people will be very ticked. I would also like to see the process of using rider bills end. If they can't stand on their own merit they should not be passed. It would also keep both parties from holding things hostage like attaching something worthless to the defense appropriation bill.


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> KEN W said:
> 
> 
> > Will be interesting to see what happens if and when a "no earmarks" bill is passed.
> ...


Agreed, no amendments to bills should be allowed without the approval of the originator, or anything that does not fall in context of the original bill, only highway stuff with the highway bill, etc.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Yup,I agree.But it will hurt ND.....From an article I've seen....ND is number 3 on the list of earmarked money per capita in the US.

When things are cut.....there will be lots of screaming.It is always....cut the other guys,not mine.Tough decision will have to be made.The biggest users of Fed dollars here are farmers.How about ending all CRP and dropping farm subsides by 20-25%???


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

I think the CRP is fine, especially keeping those marginal acres out of tillage, I would like to see them put more emphasis on possibly a no tillage buffer next to water ways and wetlands.

Quit funding corn ethanol and take that money to switch over to switchgrass or something of that nature ethanol. It's never smart to burn your food.

As far as the farm program and subsidies, I think the writing is on the wall that the next farm bill is going to be much smaller than the last one.

If they would just cut the crap out of the federal budget, quit funding the UN (what exactly do they do for us?), and quit passing bills for touchy feely reasons and pass bills that make sense I think it would straighten out fast, but that is probably a pipe dream.

Put some tariffs on imports from foreign nations and get our own population and businesses going again. China is killing our manufacturing basically with "slave labor". How can a US company compete with overseas outfits paying pennies a day.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

The problem with earmarks is that they only make up 2-3% of the budget.To really get into cutting the budget you have to cut Social Security,Medicare,and Defense,Farm Programs etc.So all this hoopala about earmarks is basically symbolic.


----------

