ISideWith.com

[Tarheel]

I don't want Barry to have it either.  That is where the problem lies with me.  Who do you get?  If you get someone appointed by congress then they will give them their findings and then congress will base policy off that.  I don't trust congress enough to appoint someone nor do I trust them with the findings.  I don't have an answer for it.

Maybe the Big Four Audit firms should appoint them (and do the audit); get it out of Fed Gov's hands altogether!

[Tarheel]

I don't want Barry to have it either.  That is where the problem lies with me.  Who do you get?  If you get someone appointed by congress then they will give them their findings and then congress will base policy off that.  I don't trust congress enough to appoint someone nor do I trust them with the findings.  I don't have an answer for it.

"'Barry'"!; how disrespectful!  Consider yourself reported to ATTACKWATCH dot com Buddy!  Offensive!  Shameful!

[AUTiger1]

Maybe the Big Four Audit firms should appoint them (and do the audit); get it out of Fed Gov's hands altogether!

It definitely beats someone appointed to do it by the President or Congress.

"'Barry'"!; how disrespectful!  Consider yourself reported to ATTACKWATCH dot com Buddy!  Offensive!  Shameful!

It was a slip of the tongue.  No worries though, I reported myself as soon as I hit post.

[Tarheel]

It definitely beats someone appointed to do it by the President or Congress.

It was a slip of the tongue.  No worries though, I reported myself as soon as I hit post.

Sometimes I wish The X had a "Like" button...

[GH2001]

GH2001: Given what you're saying now, how did you side with Romney so much more than Johnson?

You must hate some gays and some pot.

No idea. I just answered the questions on the survey and that's what it spit out.

Keep in mind too that national security/foreign affairs and other economic questions I probably disagree with Johnson on. I know that I loathe his stances on tarrifs. No, I didn't hate on the pot. You can look back in my debates with GarMan to see my stance on it. I don't like it personally, but have no issue with it being legal and regulated. I think there are prescription drugs and alcohol (too much hard liquor) that are medically worse for people than mary jane.

If Ron Paul had a decent foreign policy instead of the fantasy land naive one that he does, I would be behind him all the way. The guy really gets it economically. I really wanted Herman Cain or Newt just going off our pure need for some good economic sense right now. Like him or not, its hard to argue with Newt's economic track record. He made Clinton look real good.

[GH2001]

I do not want Congress having that much influence over our monetary policy.

Umm, they are supposed to. It's a nation's currency!

Who do you think should have the power to issue currency and policy surrounding it?

Article 1, clause 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the exclusive right to coin money, issue currency, and regulate its value.

I am not sure who else would do it. I sure as hell don't want a Fed Res chairman or Treasury Sec doing it. How has that worked out?

[AUTiger1]

Umm, they are supposed to. It's a nation's currency!

Who do you think should have the power to issue currency and policy surrounding it?

Article 1, clause 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the exclusive right to coin money, issue currency, and regulate its value.

I am not sure who else would do it. I sure as hell don't want a Fed Res chairman or Treasury Sec doing it. How has that worked out?

I get that.  What I am getting at is this:  Does that give them the power to independently audit the Fed?  Something that has never been done.  Also, if it does, does one not question if this is a slippery slope?  I see something like this happening..."Hey rag tag group! Audit the fed and remember that we sent you to do the audit, so it would be nice if it read like this, so we can do this.  Cough, wink."......get where I am going? 

EDIT:  Like I said earlier, I have no clue, since this is something that has never been done before and haven't given it much thought since it doesn't look like it will ever be done.   Just throwing thoughts out there.

[Ogre]

A little late to the party, but...



I am actually surprised I sided that much with Romney/Repubs.  I'm not so surprised that I am so far away from Obama and the Dems. 

[Saniflush]

A little late to the party, but...



I am actually surprised I sided that much with Romney/Repubs.  I'm not so surprised that I am so far away from Obama and the Dems.

It's obvious that you are racist.

[Ogre]

It's obvious that you are racist.

Did the hood give me away?

[Saniflush]

Did the hood give me away?

I told you to wash up after those cross burnings.

[GH2001]

I get that.  What I am getting at is this:  Does that give them the power to independently audit the Fed?  Something that has never been done.  Also, if it does, does one not question if this is a slippery slope?  I see something like this happening..."Hey rag tag group! Audit the fed and remember that we sent you to do the audit, so it would be nice if it read like this, so we can do this.  Cough, wink."......get where I am going? 

EDIT:  Like I said earlier, I have no clue, since this is something that has never been done before and haven't given it much thought since it doesn't look like it will ever be done.   Just throwing thoughts out there.

It's a "bank". Why wouldn't it be audited? That's what the whole stink is about.

[Tarheel]

It's obvious that you are racist.

Well, someone on teh FB had a clever test to tell whether or not you are a racist.  It goes like this:

Did you wake up and go to work this morning?

Are you white?

If you answered "Yes" to these questions then you are a racist.

[GH2001]

Well, someone on teh FB had a clever test to tell whether or not you are a racist.  It goes like this:

Did you wake up and go to work this morning?

Are you white?

If you answered "Yes" to these questions then you are a racist.

Pure awesome. And sad because it's somewhat true.