I Really Like Ron Paul but I'm Enthusiastically Voting for Obama!

[CrusaderFrank]

The OP is like "I'm a live food vegan but I'm getting bacon on the cheeseburger" kind of post

 

[IndependntLogic]

I certainly did post my opinion about your topic, rather sarcastically. I'm not at all shocked that you are voting for Obama. Not in the least.

And, I don't share who got my vote or who will get my vote, with one exception. I voted for Perot for President. Otherwise, I don't ever share that information. Ever.

LOL! Okey dokey! That is entirely your choice. So basically you criticize those with the courage to state their convictions, while not having sufficient supply to do so yourself. What a marvelous example of "internet people"!

And Ross Perot? Really? Yeah I guess that seems to fit you.

Hmmm. Telling someone that their vote is not surprising, then telling that same person that a thread they made about themselves IS a thread about them, are criticisms.



My, my, my. Your feelings seem to be quite fragile.

Well if you think that laughing at you indicates my feelings are "fragile", rock on little man!

Oh, so you were action out of emotion back then, but you're oh so "logical" today.

Whatthefuckever.

When you get over your hysterics, do you want to try discussing a topic some time? I mean it's flattering that you follow me through all these threads and post about nothing but me!
But if you would like to take a crack at a topic someday.... oh wait. That's right it's you.
Well okay then.

The topic, as was already pointed out, is you talking about you...Again.

Good thing you're not totally conceited or anything like that.

I could dumb it down and explain that my topic was about politics (you know, what this forum is about) and why a particular candidate seems to have the best qualifications but seriously, a dumazz like you has posted about me 5 times in this thread and not once about Iraq, Afghanistan and the other topics of the OP. So I get it. I spanked you and it got under your skin. Now I own you like a little biotch and you follow threads to post about.... ME!

You are funny! Thanks for the laughs little man!

 

[editec]

I like Ron Paul's gravitas, too.

If his economic plans weren't so freaking insane I'd consider voting for him.

Sadly he has supped from the Randian cup of economic cluelessness.

 

[Liability]

LOL! Okey dokey! That is entirely your choice. So basically you criticize those with the courage to state their convictions, while not having sufficient supply to do so yourself. What a marvelous example of "internet people"!

And Ross Perot? Really? Yeah I guess that seems to fit you.

Hmmm. Telling someone that their vote is not surprising, then telling that same person that a thread they made about themselves IS a thread about them, are criticisms.



My, my, my. Your feelings seem to be quite fragile.

Well if you think that laughing at you indicates my feelings are "fragile", rock on little man!

When you get over your hysterics, do you want to try discussing a topic some time? I mean it's flattering that you follow me through all these threads and post about nothing but me!
But if you would like to take a crack at a topic someday.... oh wait. That's right it's you.
Well okay then.

The topic, as was already pointed out, is you talking about you...Again.

Good thing you're not totally conceited or anything like that.

I could dumb it down and explain that my topic was about politics (you know, what this forum is about) and why a particular candidate seems to have the best qualifications but seriously, a dumazz like you has posted about me 5 times in this thread and not once about Iraq, Afghanistan and the other topics of the OP. So I get it. I spanked you and it got under your skin. Now I own you like a little biotch and you follow threads to post about.... ME!

You are funny! Thanks for the laughs little man!

Everything you post is dumbed-down by default since you clearly aren't all that bright.

Face facts for a change. The flaws in your alleged "thinking" have been noted. You just can't deal with the rebuttals.

You may continue to claim to be smarter than those who have exposed you, but you can't fool anybody with that dishonest routine you flaccidly try to foist off on us. Who and what you are still comes through, like a foul odor.

 

[HomeInspect]

I'm Conservative on: Gun Ownership, Climate Change, Oil Drilling, Unions, Coal, Success!, ObamaCare Sucks, Reducing Government, No Handouts Subsidies etc...
I'm Liberal on: Most Social issues, Seperation of Church & State.
All on: No more needless wars. Reduce Defense Budget


I too, fit the above desription... but I will add, hardcore fiscal conservative, and I wouldn't be anxious to cut defense, just use it more responsibly. Also add conservative on illegal aliens in this counry, costing us more than the wars.

 

[HomeInspect]

Being a fiscal conservative, and being against big goverment and dependency on it, there is now way in hell I could vote for Obama.

 

[Paulie]

There is no false choice. There is only a choice between a President who holds the Constitution in contempt, who has made it very clear that he holds America in contempt, and who out of ignorance or intent has done great damage to this country - or -

...Or, we can choose one of the other 3 GOP candidates who would have voted for the NDAA...a bill that holds the constitution in contempt.

Or a Ron Paul who says he would have voted against it but didn't show up to vote against it.

What would a President Paul do if that bill hit his desk? Would he veto it on principle and thereby refuse to fund what is absolutely necessary to provide for the common defense? Or would he sign it as the will of the elected representatiives and hope to fix the worst parts of it later. (As has happened with the Patriot Act?)

Can you say for certain what he would do?

But anyway, if the NDAA is the most important burr under your saddle, then you should vote Democrat. The Yays and Nays were split 50/50 between the House Democrats while a plurality of Republicans did vote Yay. In the Senate, seven Democrats opposed it and five Republicans opposed.

And if you want to go back as far as votes in the 1970's to hang folks, there probably isn't going to be all that much objectivity involved in the discussion anyway.

I am less concerned about those issues--though I oppose them all on principle--than I am about trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. If the country goes bankrupt, there are not enough combined nations in the world to bail us out, and the best Constitution in the world can't help us. If we can stay solvent, and manage to elect the right President and Congress, everything else is fixable.

Who is more likely to hurtle us into intentional bankruptcy? Obama? Or any of the GOP candidates?

Again, it is a no brainer.

I know enough about Paul to know he'd never sign a bill that had anything unconstitutional in it. That's exactly what he gave Santorum shit for the other night when Santorum said he voted for bill that funded Planned Parenthood only because he had some things added to the bill that he supported. Paul specifically said that voting for a bill that's got something unconstitutional in it is still UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Why should the president be forced to sign the NDAA just because there's defense funding in it? Fucking veto the bill and make congress send him something constitutional. What's so god damn hard about that?

 

[HomeInspect]

This venerable and much honored WW II vet is well known in Hawaii for his seventy-plus years of service to patriotic organizations and causes all over the country. A humble man without a political bone in his body, he has never spoken out before about a government official, until now.

He dictated this letter to a friend, signed it and mailed it to the president.

I wonder whether the Secret Service will investigate him as a “threat to Obama and nation security



Dear President Obama,


My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year. People meeting me for the first time don't believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.

I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos'n Mate. Now I live in a "rest home" located on the western end of Pearl Harbor , allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country.

One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man.


So here goes.


I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do, but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.

I can't figure out what country you are the president of.

You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like:

" We're no longer a Christian nation"

" America is arrogant" -
Your wife even announced to the world,"America is mean- spirited."


Please tell her to try preaching that nonsense to 23 generations of our war dead buried all over the globe who died for no other reason than to free a whole lot of strangers from tyranny and hopelessness.)

I'd say shame on the both of you, but I don't think you like America, nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do, for the obvious gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House.

After 9/11 you said," America hasn't lived up to her ideals."

Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British? Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man, that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War? I hope you didn't mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers, husbands, and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around, because we stand for freedom.

I don't think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected.

Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man.

Shape up and start acting like an American. If you don't, I'll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue . You were elected to lead not to bow, apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves.

And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don't want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts , who was putting up a fight? You don't mind offending the police calling them stupid but you don't want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists.

One more thing. I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life, but you're the Commander-in-Chief now, son. Do your job. When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. But if you're not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you're thinking of.

You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president.

You're not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy. That's not our greatest threat. Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now.

And I sure as hell don't want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle...



Sincerely,

Harold B. Estes

 

[Full-Auto]

Well Si Modo, I did give my opinions. Then I backed them up with some reasons and facts that led to those opinions.

Do you not state your opinions here? Or do all the whackjobs simply post about other posters instead of the issues in the threads?

I know there are at least one or two Conservs on this board who can actually intelligently debate subjects. Too bad none of them have come into this thread. Oh well!
You guys may now continue posting about me. It's funny to watch.

Or hey, here's a novel idea. You could tell me who YOU'RE voting for and why? (Not holding breath)

I certainly did post my opinion about your topic, rather sarcastically. I'm not at all shocked that you are voting for Obama. Not in the least.

And, I don't share who got my vote or who will get my vote, with one exception. I voted for Perot for President. Otherwise, I don't ever share that information. Ever.

LOL! Okey dokey! That is entirely your choice. So basically you criticize those with the courage to state their convictions, while not having sufficient supply to do so yourself. What a marvelous example of "internet people"!

And Ross Perot? Really? Yeah I guess that seems to fit you.

The only conviction you are going by is supporting corruption.

Hopefully many of the low life democrats get convicted once we get an honest AG

 

[Meister]

This venerable and much honored WW II vet is well known in Hawaii for his seventy-plus years of service to patriotic organizations and causes all over the country. A humble man without a political bone in his body, he has never spoken out before about a government official, until now.

He dictated this letter to a friend, signed it and mailed it to the president.

I wonder whether the Secret Service will investigate him as a “threat to Obama and nation security



Dear President Obama,


My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year. People meeting me for the first time don't believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.

I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos'n Mate. Now I live in a "rest home" located on the western end of Pearl Harbor , allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country.

One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man.


So here goes.


I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do, but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.

I can't figure out what country you are the president of.

You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like:

" We're no longer a Christian nation"

" America is arrogant" -
Your wife even announced to the world,"America is mean- spirited."


Please tell her to try preaching that nonsense to 23 generations of our war dead buried all over the globe who died for no other reason than to free a whole lot of strangers from tyranny and hopelessness.)

I'd say shame on the both of you, but I don't think you like America, nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do, for the obvious gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House.

After 9/11 you said," America hasn't lived up to her ideals."

Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British? Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man, that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War? I hope you didn't mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers, husbands, and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around, because we stand for freedom.

I don't think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected.

Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man.

Shape up and start acting like an American. If you don't, I'll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue . You were elected to lead not to bow, apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves.

And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don't want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts , who was putting up a fight? You don't mind offending the police calling them stupid but you don't want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists.

One more thing. I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life, but you're the Commander-in-Chief now, son. Do your job. When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. But if you're not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you're thinking of.

You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president.

You're not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy. That's not our greatest threat. Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now.

And I sure as hell don't want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle...



Sincerely,

Harold B. Estes

well said

 

[Peach]

The election boils down to which candidate gets more of the hold your nose and vote vote.
***************************************************
So far, YES.

 

[Si modo]

LOL! Okey dokey! That is entirely your choice. So basically you criticize those with the courage to state their convictions, while not having sufficient supply to do so yourself. What a marvelous example of "internet people"!

And Ross Perot? Really? Yeah I guess that seems to fit you.

Hmmm. Telling someone that their vote is not surprising, then telling that same person that a thread they made about themselves IS a thread about them, are criticisms.



My, my, my. Your feelings seem to be quite fragile.

Well if you think that laughing at you indicates my feelings are "fragile", rock on little man!

When you get over your hysterics, do you want to try discussing a topic some time? I mean it's flattering that you follow me through all these threads and post about nothing but me!
But if you would like to take a crack at a topic someday.... oh wait. That's right it's you.
Well okay then.

The topic, as was already pointed out, is you talking about you...Again.

Good thing you're not totally conceited or anything like that.

I could dumb it down and explain that my topic was about politics (you know, what this forum is about) and why a particular candidate seems to have the best qualifications but seriously, a dumazz like you has posted about me 5 times in this thread and not once about Iraq, Afghanistan and the other topics of the OP. So I get it. I spanked you and it got under your skin. Now I own you like a little biotch and you follow threads to post about.... ME!

You are funny! Thanks for the laughs little man!

As I said, you called my posts to you "criticisms". My posts included my lack of surprise and pointing out that your thread you made about you IS about you.

And, you call that "criticism". Yup, you're feelings are fragile. Man-up (and I apply that to both men and women who need to grow a pair).

I am confident that you will know when I actually do criticize you - like now, for being a whiney pussy for having reality of what I said pointed out to you.

 

[Meister]

Ron Paul is really the only guy worth watching in the debates. He's just so danm honest! I agree with him on a LOT of points too e.g. Why TF are we giving money to foreign politicians when we don't even trust our own; the war on drugs has already been lost etc...
But the stuff I disagree with him on, I disagree with so strongly that I won't vote for him. Plus I find the Libertarian Philosophy very flawed when it comes to The Market correcting itself. I've lived in places that had virturally no corporate regulation. No thanks.
I didn't like Obama at all for about two years. There are two things I'm still pretty furious with him about: ObamaCare and NDAA. Oh well.
But he has kept a LOT of his promises (including ObamaCare, which was one I wish he hadn't).
I didn't blame Bush for high prices and I don't blame Obama (well, maybe just a little but not to the extent the ConservaRepubs would like to believe).
I find this to be the most absurd time in history for the GOP to be so focused on social issues. I am former military and had friends who were Force Recon in Afghanistan. An Army translator listened in on chatter and kept them away from some seriously bad juju. Turned out he was gay. Took weeks to get another guy fluent in Pashtu or whatever TF it was.
So repealing DADT was a seriously big deal to a lot of people.
Also, as the DOO of a charity that helps returning troops and Veterans, I watched them get screwed by the GOP for years. Obama has funded a TON of programs for Vets and the VA that I like a lot. Also, he specifically had language written in that put in place the strongest protective measures of women in the military in history.
When I'm volunteering, the three candidates I hear the most positives things about are #1. Obama #2. Ron Paul and #3. "Anyone but Obama" (from the diehard ConservaRepubs). But there is no denying, this guy is liked a lot more military than any Dem in a long time.
Getting us out of Iraq is a big deal. I know it was already set but gee, have presidents spun things and broken promises before. So okey dokey.
He said he'd take the focus to Afghanistan and go after the people who actually attacked America. He killed more Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders in a couple years, than Bush did in eight. He followed the leads from dozens of SOF ops to Pakistan. Then, right in public, he negotiated the release of a US spy from the Pakistan government. A couple months later, He got Bin Laden and yes, I give him credit for that. Now that we finally MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, he's announced the withdraw from Afghanistan. All Bush's wars are over. The most important one, won by Obama.
And waddya know. We're getting out.
Libya. The Republicans (Boehner, Cantor) were screaming we should "Do Something". Then, with an actual NATO led force, we did. Not one American life. Quick withdraw. So of course, the Republicans suddenly became doves and screamed "Hey! He DID something!". WTF??? Hypocrisy much?
Same thing with Aw Lakhi. Suddenly the GOP sounded more like the ACLU! WTF!!!!

So what are the Republicans offering me? Romney seemed worth a look but he has been forced into Romney Version 5.9 by the other two. Now he is so socially Conservative! For now.

After months of talking about the fact that, even if the Dow is going up and UnEmployment is (according to FOX) going down and manufacturing is going up and.... well whatever, ALL is Doom & Gloom! Also it's all about the DEFICIT! That's the key folks!
So they all released their budgets. All of their budgets RAISE THE DEFICIT!!! WTF??? (okay not Ron Paul).
The same low taxes that haven't made a dam bit of difference in the economy or unemployment for years, will suddenly cure all ills if we elect them. Riiiiight.
Gay marriage? Like I care. But I do think they should be able to visit each other in hospitals and get benefits or whatever? Sure why not.
Contraception? Are you outta your dam mind??? Yeah, THAT will get my vote.
All these social issues leave me and pretty much everyone I know, unimpressed. Especially now.

The GOP candidates suck. Really, badly.
Obama isn't great but during the last year he's been pretty dam good.
I'm voting for him.

WOW! Call me surprised.

 

[Foxfyre]

...Or, we can choose one of the other 3 GOP candidates who would have voted for the NDAA...a bill that holds the constitution in contempt.

Or a Ron Paul who says he would have voted against it but didn't show up to vote against it.

What would a President Paul do if that bill hit his desk? Would he veto it on principle and thereby refuse to fund what is absolutely necessary to provide for the common defense? Or would he sign it as the will of the elected representatiives and hope to fix the worst parts of it later. (As has happened with the Patriot Act?)

Can you say for certain what he would do?

But anyway, if the NDAA is the most important burr under your saddle, then you should vote Democrat. The Yays and Nays were split 50/50 between the House Democrats while a plurality of Republicans did vote Yay. In the Senate, seven Democrats opposed it and five Republicans opposed.

And if you want to go back as far as votes in the 1970's to hang folks, there probably isn't going to be all that much objectivity involved in the discussion anyway.

I am less concerned about those issues--though I oppose them all on principle--than I am about trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. If the country goes bankrupt, there are not enough combined nations in the world to bail us out, and the best Constitution in the world can't help us. If we can stay solvent, and manage to elect the right President and Congress, everything else is fixable.

Who is more likely to hurtle us into intentional bankruptcy? Obama? Or any of the GOP candidates?

Again, it is a no brainer.

I know enough about Paul to know he'd never sign a bill that had anything unconstitutional in it. That's exactly what he gave Santorum shit for the other night when Santorum said he voted for bill that funded Planned Parenthood only because he had some things added to the bill that he supported. Paul specifically said that voting for a bill that's got something unconstitutional in it is still UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Why should the president be forced to sign the NDAA just because there's defense funding in it? Fucking veto the bill and make congress send him something constitutional. What's so god damn hard about that?

I'm happy that you are blessed with the gift of clairvoyance and mind reading and a certainty of what Ron Paul would do. I have lived long enough to see President after Presidfent struggling with their campaign promises and campaign rhetoric and personal convictions that become less absolute when you hold legislation and the Presidential pen in your hands. Those without the power can be as fanatical as they wish without consequence in their opinions and perceptions. It often isn't that easy for the one who holds the power, most especially when you know of the consequenvces of using that power.

The NDAA is certainly imperfect legislation. But it is not quite the 'unconstitutional' monstrosity that the libertarians would have us believe. Obama finigled himself more power in the negotiations process without challenging some of the worse pushed by both parties.

So again, would a President Paul be a stubborn old ideologue demanding his way despite the 'will of the people' through their elected representatibves? Or would he respect the process and enter into the give and take that is necessary to accomplish anything in Washington. After all, it took the Founders seven years of debates, dog fights, haggling, and negotiations to finally arrive at a Constitution that all would sign and support. It was not a perfect document, nobody got everything they wanted in it, and it has been amended numerous times since to correct some of the imperfections.

Would a President Paul be a hard core ideologue or would he be a leader and a statesmen directing and pushing for the best possibnle legislation that can be achieved? And that might include signing an imperfect NDAA that includes some essential things but with an eye to push for legislation to correct some or all of the imperfections later.

Again, I am not godly enough to know how another person will choose to handle controversy. I doubt very many of us are.

Adam Serwer, who’s covered the ins and outs of the NDAA fight better than anyone, has a helpful piece today summarizing what the bill does (and just as importantly, what it doesn’t do).

[The NDAA] says that the president has to hold a foreign Al Qaeda suspect captured on US soil in military detention — except it leaves enough procedural loopholes that someone like convicted underwear bomber and Nigerian citizen Umar Abdulmutallab could actually go from capture to trial without ever being held by the military.

It does not, contrary to what many media outlets have reported, authorize the president to indefinitely detain without trial an American citizen suspected of terrorism who is captured in the US. A last minute compromise amendment adopted in the Senate, whose language was retained in the final bill, leaves it up to the courts to decide if the president has that power, should a future president try to exercise it. But if a future president does try to assert the authority to detain an American citizen without charge or trial, it won’t be based on the authority in this bill.

There’s been a fair amount of coverage this week, arguing that the bill, among things, empowers the executive branch “to throw American citizens into prison for life without charges or a trial.” Adam’s reporting shows otherwise.

This is not to say the NDAA is a good bill. In fact, as Adam explained, the bill’s language “writes into law an assumed role for the military in domestic counterterrorism that did not exist before,” and though this president and this administration appear to have no interest is using the law the way Republicans would like, we don’t know how future presidents may implement the same provisions.

But it’s not quite as outrageous as some reports have suggested.

I had one related thought about this. President Obama has been facing quite a bit of criticism from the left over the NDAA’s provisions, and that’s understandable. It’s pretty easy to make the case that the measure should have been vetoed.

That said, if I’m making a list of those responsible for the NDAA’s most odious measures, the White House wouldn’t be on top. I’d start, obviously, with congressional Republicans whose misguided worldview intended to make the NDAA even more offensive, but it was a whole lot of congressional Democrats who went along with them.

We’ve seen this problem before — most notably with the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay — where the president and his start off in a relatively good place in a national-security dispute, but end up in a much worse place because congressional Dems helped push them there.

Regardless, the NDAA is done. Recalling a phrase I’m sure I’ve used more than once this year, it’s bad, but it could have been worse.
Political Animal - What the NDAA does

 

[WillowTree]

Ron Paul is really the only guy worth watching in the debates. He's just so danm honest! I agree with him on a LOT of points too e.g. Why TF are we giving money to foreign politicians when we don't even trust our own; the war on drugs has already been lost etc...
But the stuff I disagree with him on, I disagree with so strongly that I won't vote for him. Plus I find the Libertarian Philosophy very flawed when it comes to The Market correcting itself. I've lived in places that had virturally no corporate regulation. No thanks.
I didn't like Obama at all for about two years. There are two things I'm still pretty furious with him about: ObamaCare and NDAA. Oh well.
But he has kept a LOT of his promises (including ObamaCare, which was one I wish he hadn't).
I didn't blame Bush for high prices and I don't blame Obama (well, maybe just a little but not to the extent the ConservaRepubs would like to believe).
I find this to be the most absurd time in history for the GOP to be so focused on social issues. I am former military and had friends who were Force Recon in Afghanistan. An Army translator listened in on chatter and kept them away from some seriously bad juju. Turned out he was gay. Took weeks to get another guy fluent in Pashtu or whatever TF it was.
So repealing DADT was a seriously big deal to a lot of people.
Also, as the DOO of a charity that helps returning troops and Veterans, I watched them get screwed by the GOP for years. Obama has funded a TON of programs for Vets and the VA that I like a lot. Also, he specifically had language written in that put in place the strongest protective measures of women in the military in history.
When I'm volunteering, the three candidates I hear the most positives things about are #1. Obama #2. Ron Paul and #3. "Anyone but Obama" (from the diehard ConservaRepubs). But there is no denying, this guy is liked a lot more military than any Dem in a long time.
Getting us out of Iraq is a big deal. I know it was already set but gee, have presidents spun things and broken promises before. So okey dokey.
He said he'd take the focus to Afghanistan and go after the people who actually attacked America. He killed more Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders in a couple years, than Bush did in eight. He followed the leads from dozens of SOF ops to Pakistan. Then, right in public, he negotiated the release of a US spy from the Pakistan government. A couple months later, He got Bin Laden and yes, I give him credit for that. Now that we finally MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, he's announced the withdraw from Afghanistan. All Bush's wars are over. The most important one, won by Obama.
And waddya know. We're getting out.
Libya. The Republicans (Boehner, Cantor) were screaming we should "Do Something". Then, with an actual NATO led force, we did. Not one American life. Quick withdraw. So of course, the Republicans suddenly became doves and screamed "Hey! He DID something!". WTF??? Hypocrisy much?
Same thing with Aw Lakhi. Suddenly the GOP sounded more like the ACLU! WTF!!!!

So what are the Republicans offering me? Romney seemed worth a look but he has been forced into Romney Version 5.9 by the other two. Now he is so socially Conservative! For now.

After months of talking about the fact that, even if the Dow is going up and UnEmployment is (according to FOX) going down and manufacturing is going up and.... well whatever, ALL is Doom & Gloom! Also it's all about the DEFICIT! That's the key folks!
So they all released their budgets. All of their budgets RAISE THE DEFICIT!!! WTF??? (okay not Ron Paul).
The same low taxes that haven't made a dam bit of difference in the economy or unemployment for years, will suddenly cure all ills if we elect them. Riiiiight.
Gay marriage? Like I care. But I do think they should be able to visit each other in hospitals and get benefits or whatever? Sure why not.
Contraception? Are you outta your dam mind??? Yeah, THAT will get my vote.
All these social issues leave me and pretty much everyone I know, unimpressed. Especially now.

The GOP candidates suck. Really, badly.
Obama isn't great but during the last year he's been pretty dam good.
I'm voting for him.

you are dumb as a box of rocks if you think "obama's been pretty damn good" jaysus h chreeeeist.

 

[Peach]

Ron Paul is really the only guy worth watching in the debates. He's just so danm honest! I agree with him on a LOT of points too e.g. Why TF are we giving money to foreign politicians when we don't even trust our own; the war on drugs has already been lost etc...
But the stuff I disagree with him on, I disagree with so strongly that I won't vote for him. Plus I find the Libertarian Philosophy very flawed when it comes to The Market correcting itself. I've lived in places that had virturally no corporate regulation. No thanks.
I didn't like Obama at all for about two years. There are two things I'm still pretty furious with him about: ObamaCare and NDAA. Oh well.
But he has kept a LOT of his promises (including ObamaCare, which was one I wish he hadn't).
I didn't blame Bush for high prices and I don't blame Obama (well, maybe just a little but not to the extent the ConservaRepubs would like to believe).
I find this to be the most absurd time in history for the GOP to be so focused on social issues. I am former military and had friends who were Force Recon in Afghanistan. An Army translator listened in on chatter and kept them away from some seriously bad juju. Turned out he was gay. Took weeks to get another guy fluent in Pashtu or whatever TF it was.
So repealing DADT was a seriously big deal to a lot of people.
Also, as the DOO of a charity that helps returning troops and Veterans, I watched them get screwed by the GOP for years. Obama has funded a TON of programs for Vets and the VA that I like a lot. Also, he specifically had language written in that put in place the strongest protective measures of women in the military in history.
When I'm volunteering, the three candidates I hear the most positives things about are #1. Obama #2. Ron Paul and #3. "Anyone but Obama" (from the diehard ConservaRepubs). But there is no denying, this guy is liked a lot more military than any Dem in a long time.
Getting us out of Iraq is a big deal. I know it was already set but gee, have presidents spun things and broken promises before. So okey dokey.
He said he'd take the focus to Afghanistan and go after the people who actually attacked America. He killed more Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders in a couple years, than Bush did in eight. He followed the leads from dozens of SOF ops to Pakistan. Then, right in public, he negotiated the release of a US spy from the Pakistan government. A couple months later, He got Bin Laden and yes, I give him credit for that. Now that we finally MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, he's announced the withdraw from Afghanistan. All Bush's wars are over. The most important one, won by Obama.
And waddya know. We're getting out.
Libya. The Republicans (Boehner, Cantor) were screaming we should "Do Something". Then, with an actual NATO led force, we did. Not one American life. Quick withdraw. So of course, the Republicans suddenly became doves and screamed "Hey! He DID something!". WTF??? Hypocrisy much?
Same thing with Aw Lakhi. Suddenly the GOP sounded more like the ACLU! WTF!!!!

So what are the Republicans offering me? Romney seemed worth a look but he has been forced into Romney Version 5.9 by the other two. Now he is so socially Conservative! For now.

After months of talking about the fact that, even if the Dow is going up and UnEmployment is (according to FOX) going down and manufacturing is going up and.... well whatever, ALL is Doom & Gloom! Also it's all about the DEFICIT! That's the key folks!
So they all released their budgets. All of their budgets RAISE THE DEFICIT!!! WTF??? (okay not Ron Paul).
The same low taxes that haven't made a dam bit of difference in the economy or unemployment for years, will suddenly cure all ills if we elect them. Riiiiight.
Gay marriage? Like I care. But I do think they should be able to visit each other in hospitals and get benefits or whatever? Sure why not.
Contraception? Are you outta your dam mind??? Yeah, THAT will get my vote.
All these social issues leave me and pretty much everyone I know, unimpressed. Especially now.

The GOP candidates suck. Really, badly.
Obama isn't great but during the last year he's been pretty dam good.
I'm voting for him.

you are dumb as a box of rocks if you think "obama's been pretty damn good" jaysus h chreeeeist.

Look at what Republicans are offering.

 

[kaz]

Ron Paul is really the only guy worth watching in the debates. He's just so danm honest! I agree with him on a LOT of points too e.g. Why TF are we giving money to foreign politicians when we don't even trust our own; the war on drugs has already been lost etc...

You like the guy who wants to minimize government, but you're going to enthusiastically vote for the guy who wants to maximize it. Makes as much sense as anything else liberals ever say...

 

[Liability]

There is some comedy gold inherent in the incoherent/contradictory/vapid posts of LemmingIllogical

"As a devout vegan, I heartily endorse the Quarter Pounder with Cheese!"

CrusaderFrank nailed that idiot author of the ridiculous OP.

 

[Paulie]

Or a Ron Paul who says he would have voted against it but didn't show up to vote against it.

What would a President Paul do if that bill hit his desk? Would he veto it on principle and thereby refuse to fund what is absolutely necessary to provide for the common defense? Or would he sign it as the will of the elected representatiives and hope to fix the worst parts of it later. (As has happened with the Patriot Act?)

Can you say for certain what he would do?

But anyway, if the NDAA is the most important burr under your saddle, then you should vote Democrat. The Yays and Nays were split 50/50 between the House Democrats while a plurality of Republicans did vote Yay. In the Senate, seven Democrats opposed it and five Republicans opposed.

And if you want to go back as far as votes in the 1970's to hang folks, there probably isn't going to be all that much objectivity involved in the discussion anyway.

I am less concerned about those issues--though I oppose them all on principle--than I am about trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. If the country goes bankrupt, there are not enough combined nations in the world to bail us out, and the best Constitution in the world can't help us. If we can stay solvent, and manage to elect the right President and Congress, everything else is fixable.

Who is more likely to hurtle us into intentional bankruptcy? Obama? Or any of the GOP candidates?

Again, it is a no brainer.

I know enough about Paul to know he'd never sign a bill that had anything unconstitutional in it. That's exactly what he gave Santorum shit for the other night when Santorum said he voted for bill that funded Planned Parenthood only because he had some things added to the bill that he supported. Paul specifically said that voting for a bill that's got something unconstitutional in it is still UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Why should the president be forced to sign the NDAA just because there's defense funding in it? Fucking veto the bill and make congress send him something constitutional. What's so god damn hard about that?

I'm happy that you are blessed with the gift of clairvoyance and mind reading and a certainty of what Ron Paul would do. I have lived long enough to see President after Presidfent struggling with their campaign promises and campaign rhetoric and personal convictions that become less absolute when you hold legislation and the Presidential pen in your hands. Those without the power can be as fanatical as they wish without consequence in their opinions and perceptions. It often isn't that easy for the one who holds the power, most especially when you know of the consequenvces of using that power.

The NDAA is certainly imperfect legislation. But it is not quite the 'unconstitutional' monstrosity that the libertarians would have us believe. Obama finigled himself more power in the negotiations process without challenging some of the worse pushed by both parties.

So again, would a President Paul be a stubborn old ideologue demanding his way despite the 'will of the people' through their elected representatibves? Or would he respect the process and enter into the give and take that is necessary to accomplish anything in Washington. After all, it took the Founders seven years of debates, dog fights, haggling, and negotiations to finally arrive at a Constitution that all would sign and support. It was not a perfect document, nobody got everything they wanted in it, and it has been amended numerous times since to correct some of the imperfections.

Would a President Paul be a hard core ideologue or would he be a leader and a statesmen directing and pushing for the best possibnle legislation that can be achieved? And that might include signing an imperfect NDAA that includes some essential things but with an eye to push for legislation to correct some or all of the imperfections later.

Again, I am not godly enough to know how another person will choose to handle controversy. I doubt very many of us are.

Adam Serwer, who’s covered the ins and outs of the NDAA fight better than anyone, has a helpful piece today summarizing what the bill does (and just as importantly, what it doesn’t do).

[The NDAA] says that the president has to hold a foreign Al Qaeda suspect captured on US soil in military detention — except it leaves enough procedural loopholes that someone like convicted underwear bomber and Nigerian citizen Umar Abdulmutallab could actually go from capture to trial without ever being held by the military.

It does not, contrary to what many media outlets have reported, authorize the president to indefinitely detain without trial an American citizen suspected of terrorism who is captured in the US. A last minute compromise amendment adopted in the Senate, whose language was retained in the final bill, leaves it up to the courts to decide if the president has that power, should a future president try to exercise it. But if a future president does try to assert the authority to detain an American citizen without charge or trial, it won’t be based on the authority in this bill.

There’s been a fair amount of coverage this week, arguing that the bill, among things, empowers the executive branch “to throw American citizens into prison for life without charges or a trial.” Adam’s reporting shows otherwise.

This is not to say the NDAA is a good bill. In fact, as Adam explained, the bill’s language “writes into law an assumed role for the military in domestic counterterrorism that did not exist before,” and though this president and this administration appear to have no interest is using the law the way Republicans would like, we don’t know how future presidents may implement the same provisions.

But it’s not quite as outrageous as some reports have suggested.

I had one related thought about this. President Obama has been facing quite a bit of criticism from the left over the NDAA’s provisions, and that’s understandable. It’s pretty easy to make the case that the measure should have been vetoed.

That said, if I’m making a list of those responsible for the NDAA’s most odious measures, the White House wouldn’t be on top. I’d start, obviously, with congressional Republicans whose misguided worldview intended to make the NDAA even more offensive, but it was a whole lot of congressional Democrats who went along with them.

We’ve seen this problem before — most notably with the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay — where the president and his start off in a relatively good place in a national-security dispute, but end up in a much worse place because congressional Dems helped push them there.

Regardless, the NDAA is done. Recalling a phrase I’m sure I’ve used more than once this year, it’s bad, but it could have been worse.
Political Animal - What the NDAA does

He's the only politician I've ever seen that does exactly what he says he's going to do everytime. There's not a more predictable politician in HISTORY.

So "clairvoyance"? I don't think so. It's common sense.

 

[Misty]

The only "accomplishment" Obama gets credit for is finding more ways for those who pay taxes, to pay for more crap for those who don't pay taxes.