Mr. Toad's Wild Ride

@Gargantua:

However you choose to look at it - I think it’s safe to say… alot of good soldiers died.

Amen

Sad Panda… :cry:

They make for excellent dates though (if you’re into that fury thing).

R.I.P. Bunnies P…

@nutbar:

@cminke:

buffalo bills!!!

I’m a Bills fan because of C.J. Spiller who was a Clemson player and I’m a diehard Clemson fan

do you remember the days of Doug Fluty?

Of course THIS video is 100% on topic for this forum…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ME0U9nY0AH4&feature=related

lol

Yes and no, Stuka.  It would only make vetoing a budget a thing of the past, in other words, it would streamline the budget process.  But ONLY if the Congress decides to spend MORE then they get in taxes.  Bear in mind, if Congress decides to actually, don’t faint now, spend ONLY what it has without a deficit, then it only needs a simple majority and a signature instead of a super majority AND a signature.  Likewise, if the budget has no deficit, then a veto can still be over-ridden by a super majority.

The whole idea is to make it SOO hard to go into debt that most times the country will operate above board.

In fact, I’d like to see legislation that states that 10% of all taxes MUST be invested in local government or domestic corporate bonds. (Relatively secure, helps the country or countrymen.)  Eventually, the feds should have enough invested throughout the land that they will never need to tax the people again.

Furthermore, that’s not so outlandish an idea.  Many governments domestically and abroad are buying mutual funds to supplement their income so they can ease the tax burden.  Why can’t the feds?

I just finished reading the abridged memoirs of Winston Churchill, covering WWII of course. It was new for me to get the British perspective, and very informative.

Also, A Feast for Crows by George R.R. Martin.

For those about to read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich- excellent book- I’ve read it twice. You won’t be disappointed.