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

[Sactowndog]

Easily. He passed the NDAA, that alone makes him 100% unworthy of being president in my eyes. And before you ask, yes, I feel the same way about anyone else who voted for it or supports it (like Romney).

Unlike the rest of you party hacks, I don't put party politics above my right to a fair trial.

Abso-fucking-lutely!!! Obama shits on the Constitution with the NDAA, he blows another couple TRILLION dollars and because Nerdly gets some free health care,and because IL gets something good for the vets, they're all good with it.

What the fuck are you guys THINKING?!?

Because I am registered decline to state I will vote for Ron Paul in the Primary (which is allowed in my state) and after that neither side is a winner on NDAA. Ron Paul truely cares about the constition and would truely reduce the deficit. All the rest are mostly BS.

Both sides are for subsidized health care. Obama'a is actually less so in my mind. Granted, he is just using the government versus private insurers which I don't prefer. But, he is attacking preventative care instead of blowing dollars when it is too late. Advantage: Obama

Lastly I think Obama is more serious about reducing the deficit. So I will vote for him. I don't want to hear about more tax breaks for the wealthy when revenue is already at record lows.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Does he? Do you condone him larding bills with pork for his state/district, knowing those bills will pass, and then voting against them so that he can be consistent and ethical? You don't see that as looking just a wee bit disingenuous or duplitious?

Don't get me wrong. I do like Ron Paul very much and I do believe, as politicians go, that he is one of the good ones. I can even justify that pork he puts in those bills because if the government is going to take the money from his constituents, they deserve to get their fair share of it back. All things considered, fiscally he is the most sane of all of them.

But he also has a naivete about U.S. security and who our enemies are that bothers me a lot. For instance, his failure to condemn those who planned and carried out 9/11 and 'understanding' that as logical retaliation against American foreign activity was also unacceptable to me. At the same time I agree with him that if we are going to war, we should declare it and go in with a very clear objective of what we will accomplish and what accomplishment will look like. And if we are not prepared to win it, we don't fight it.

And then there is his proven track record of NOT being able to lead--so far as I am aware of, he has never been the primary author of any significant legislation that has ever been even seriously considered, much less passed--and NOT being able to win the political respect and confidence of his colleagues who like him, but who do not take him seriously. That would be a huge problem for him as POTUS. These are not inconsequential considerations.

And I still know in my heart that it is safe and sometimes practical to be a hard core ideologue when you have only the power of one. But the competent POTUS has to be a big picture person and consider all the intended and also the unintended consequences of what he does and being a hard core ideologue is not always an option.

 

[Full-Auto]

Easily. He passed the NDAA, that alone makes him 100% unworthy of being president in my eyes. And before you ask, yes, I feel the same way about anyone else who voted for it or supports it (like Romney).

Unlike the rest of you party hacks, I don't put party politics above my right to a fair trial.

Abso-fucking-lutely!!! Obama shits on the Constitution with the NDAA, he blows another couple TRILLION dollars and because Nerdly gets some free health care,and because IL gets something good for the vets, they're all good with it.

What the fuck are you guys THINKING?!?

Because I am registered decline to state I will vote for Ron Paul in the Primary (which is allowed in my state) and after that neither side is a winner on NDAA. Ron Paul truely cares about the constition and would truely reduce the deficit. All the rest are mostly BS.

Both sides are for subsidized health care. Obama'a is actually less so in my mind. Granted, he is just using the government versus private insurers which I don't prefer. But, he is attacking preventative care instead of blowing dollars when it is too late. Advantage: Obama

Lastly I think Obama is more serious about reducing the deficit. So I will vote for him. I don't want to hear about more tax breaks for the wealthy when revenue is already at record lows.

Lastly I think Obama is more serious about reducing the deficit.

That is utter stupidity.

Obamas last budget submitted got all the tax increases he wanted and still runs a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit.

So spare us from your imagination.

 

[The T]

Abso-fucking-lutely!!! Obama shits on the Constitution with the NDAA, he blows another couple TRILLION dollars and because Nerdly gets some free health care,and because IL gets something good for the vets, they're all good with it.

What the fuck are you guys THINKING?!?

Because I am registered decline to state I will vote for Ron Paul in the Primary (which is allowed in my state) and after that neither side is a winner on NDAA. Ron Paul truely cares about the constition and would truely reduce the deficit. All the rest are mostly BS.

Both sides are for subsidized health care. Obama'a is actually less so in my mind. Granted, he is just using the government versus private insurers which I don't prefer. But, he is attacking preventative care instead of blowing dollars when it is too late. Advantage: Obama

Lastly I think Obama is more serious about reducing the deficit. So I will vote for him. I don't want to hear about more tax breaks for the wealthy when revenue is already at record lows.

Lastly I think Obama is more serious about reducing the deficit.

That is utter stupidity.

Obamas last budget submitted got all the tax increases he wanted and still runs a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit.

So spare us from your imagination.

While demanding a debt ceiling raise of 1.2 Trillion...

 

[Foxfyre]

Because I am registered decline to state I will vote for Ron Paul in the Primary (which is allowed in my state) and after that neither side is a winner on NDAA. Ron Paul truely cares about the constition and would truely reduce the deficit. All the rest are mostly BS.

Both sides are for subsidized health care. Obama'a is actually less so in my mind. Granted, he is just using the government versus private insurers which I don't prefer. But, he is attacking preventative care instead of blowing dollars when it is too late. Advantage: Obama

Lastly I think Obama is more serious about reducing the deficit. So I will vote for him. I don't want to hear about more tax breaks for the wealthy when revenue is already at record lows.

Lastly I think Obama is more serious about reducing the deficit.

That is utter stupidity.

Obamas last budget submitted got all the tax increases he wanted and still runs a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit.

So spare us from your imagination.

While demanding a debt ceiling raise of 1.2 Trillion...

Which the honorable Senator Harry Reid then interpreted as removing the necessity for a congressional budget and refused to write, consider, or pass one.

 

[Paulie]

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.

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.

Does he? Do you condone him larding bills with pork for his state/district, knowing those bills will pass, and then voting against them so that he can be consistent and ethical? You don't see that as looking just a wee bit disingenuous or duplitious?

I get so tired of explaining the earmark position.

But, I'll do it again...

The money is ALREADY SPENT. It was already approved via an appropriations bill, which Paul voted NO on. I can't even remember the last appropriations bill he voted yes on.

This is the way it goes...that money, if not earmarked, goes to the executive branch to be spent by the administration on GOD KNOWS WHAT, with very limited oversight and transparency. I shudder to think of how much money is wasted by the bloated bureaucracy in this regard, and yet you complain when a congressman returns a portion of that money to his district that he REPRESENTS? At least that way the residents can get some return on their tax dollars with TRANSPARENCY.

I don't like the idea of the executive branch having the debit card. That's way too much power for the president and his administration.

If Paul had his way, he wouldn't have to earmark funds because the money wouldn't be getting wasted in the first place.

You completely misunderstand his position on earmarks. He doesn't need to hook his district up with pork to get reelected, those people would reelect him regardless.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Does he? Do you condone him larding bills with pork for his state/district, knowing those bills will pass, and then voting against them so that he can be consistent and ethical? You don't see that as looking just a wee bit disingenuous or duplitious?

I get so tired of explaining the earmark position.

But, I'll do it again...

The money is ALREADY SPENT. It was already approved via an appropriations bill, which Paul voted NO on. I can't even remember the last appropriations bill he voted yes on.

This is the way it goes...that money, if not earmarked, goes to the executive branch to be spent by the administration on GOD KNOWS WHAT, with very limited oversight and transparency. I shudder to think of how much money is wasted by the bloated bureaucracy in this regard, and yet you complain when a congressman returns a portion of that money to his district that he REPRESENTS? At least that way the residents can get some return on their tax dollars with TRANSPARENCY.

I don't like the idea of the executive branch having the debit card. That's way too much power for the president and his administration.

If Paul had his way, he wouldn't have to earmark funds because the money wouldn't be getting wasted in the first place.

You completely misunderstand his position on earmarks. He doesn't need to hook his district up with pork to get reelected, those people would reelect him regardless.

And, based on this post of yours, I don't think you read my post or made any effort to understand what I was saying in it.

This is why I say the Ron Paul supporters don't do him any favors. The Ron Paul ideology is so hard core and uncompromising that it appears radical and over the top when it actually isn't. When you are unable to at least comprehend and hear what others are saying, and demonize them because they don't jump on the band wagon, you don't curry any confidence and ensure that your candidate cannot be elected.

 

[Paulie]

Does he? Do you condone him larding bills with pork for his state/district, knowing those bills will pass, and then voting against them so that he can be consistent and ethical? You don't see that as looking just a wee bit disingenuous or duplitious?

I get so tired of explaining the earmark position.

But, I'll do it again...

The money is ALREADY SPENT. It was already approved via an appropriations bill, which Paul voted NO on. I can't even remember the last appropriations bill he voted yes on.

This is the way it goes...that money, if not earmarked, goes to the executive branch to be spent by the administration on GOD KNOWS WHAT, with very limited oversight and transparency. I shudder to think of how much money is wasted by the bloated bureaucracy in this regard, and yet you complain when a congressman returns a portion of that money to his district that he REPRESENTS? At least that way the residents can get some return on their tax dollars with TRANSPARENCY.

I don't like the idea of the executive branch having the debit card. That's way too much power for the president and his administration.

If Paul had his way, he wouldn't have to earmark funds because the money wouldn't be getting wasted in the first place.

You completely misunderstand his position on earmarks. He doesn't need to hook his district up with pork to get reelected, those people would reelect him regardless.

And, based on this post of yours, I don't think you read my post or made any effort to understand what I was saying in it.

This is why I say the Ron Paul supporters don't do him any favors. The Ron Paul ideology is so hard core and uncompromising that it appears radical and over the top when it actually isn't. When you are unable to at least comprehend and hear what others are saying, and demonize them because they don't jump on the band wagon, you don't curry any confidence and ensure that your candidate cannot be elected.

I read the post. You started out saying that he's somehow pulling a fast one by putting pork into bills and then voting against them knowing they'll pass anyway, but then went on to say that you can justify it.

How does that make any sense? You think he's being disingenuous but that it's justified?

The whole point is that he's NOT being disingenuous. He explains very clearly why he does it. He would prefer that NONE of the spending exists...not the appropriations and not the earmarks, but if the appropriations must exist, then he's going to put some of it to better use than to the bloated bureaucracy.

And you don't have to keep reiterating that you like him, because quite frankly it means little if you're not going to vote for him.

It comes down to a compromise. You don't support his foreign policy, and we don't support the other 3 candidates' domestic policies. You want us to compromise, but we know that we'll get neither the foreign policy nor the domestic policy that we want...at least with Paul you'll get one of the 2 you want.

But I guess that all comes down to trust. You trust that the other 3 will give you the domestic policy you want...we don't.

 

[Oddball]

And, based on this post of yours, I don't think you read my post or made any effort to understand what I was saying in it.

This is why I say the Ron Paul supporters don't do him any favors. The Ron Paul ideology is so hard core and uncompromising that it appears radical and over the top when it actually isn't. When you are unable to at least comprehend and hear what others are saying, and demonize them because they don't jump on the band wagon, you don't curry any confidence and ensure that your candidate cannot be elected.

Judging the majority by the actions of a very small vocal minority doesn't speak very well for you.

Besides that, it's about time somebody brought new blood and a little excitement to the notion of strictly limited gubmint and adherence to the Constitution, rather than the lip service paid to it by the golf clapping poseurs currently populating the GOP.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

How can you look at the enormous list of President Obama's accomplishments and even consider voting for anyone else?

The man has been amazing.

And, having experienced so-called "socialized" medical care and since I already get several benefits from ObamaCare, I couldn't be happier about it.

(No, ObamaCare isn't "socialized medicine". The really stupid (Repub) system we have now IS though. Its time for everyone, even pubs and bags, to have to pay for their own care.)

Because what you consider accomplishments, most of us see as catastrophes... but then again, most of us aren't Marxist fuckwads.

 

[California Girl]

I am surprised at this thread. I never thought there was any doubt about who you would vote for, IL.

Immie

It takes more than the use of a username to be truly independent and logical.... but that is above the intellectual paygrade of some.

 

[The T]

And, based on this post of yours, I don't think you read my post or made any effort to understand what I was saying in it.

This is why I say the Ron Paul supporters don't do him any favors. The Ron Paul ideology is so hard core and uncompromising that it appears radical and over the top when it actually isn't. When you are unable to at least comprehend and hear what others are saying, and demonize them because they don't jump on the band wagon, you don't curry any confidence and ensure that your candidate cannot be elected.

Judging the majority by the actions of a very small vocal minority doesn't speak very well for you.

Besides that, it's about time somebody brought new blood and a little excitement to the notion of strictly limited gubmint and adherence to the Constitution, rather than the lip service paid to it by the golf clapping poseurs currently populating the GOP.

And the GOP is trying to foist their candidates upon us regardless what we think...the elites in the GOP loathe the TEA Party

 

[Paulie]

And, based on this post of yours, I don't think you read my post or made any effort to understand what I was saying in it.

This is why I say the Ron Paul supporters don't do him any favors. The Ron Paul ideology is so hard core and uncompromising that it appears radical and over the top when it actually isn't. When you are unable to at least comprehend and hear what others are saying, and demonize them because they don't jump on the band wagon, you don't curry any confidence and ensure that your candidate cannot be elected.

Judging the majority by the actions of a very small vocal minority doesn't speak very well for you.

Besides that, it's about time somebody brought new blood and a little excitement to the notion of strictly limited gubmint and adherence to the Constitution, rather than the lip service paid to it by the golf clapping poseurs currently populating the GOP.

And the GOP is trying to foist their candidates upon us regardless what we think...the elites in the GOP loathe the TEA Party

It's more like the elites in the GOP hijacked the tea party.

That's why the tea party somehow supports a guy like Gingrich, when there's absolutely no resaon for them to with his record.

 

[Foxfyre]

And, based on this post of yours, I don't think you read my post or made any effort to understand what I was saying in it.

This is why I say the Ron Paul supporters don't do him any favors. The Ron Paul ideology is so hard core and uncompromising that it appears radical and over the top when it actually isn't. When you are unable to at least comprehend and hear what others are saying, and demonize them because they don't jump on the band wagon, you don't curry any confidence and ensure that your candidate cannot be elected.

Judging the majority by the actions of a very small vocal minority doesn't speak very well for you.

Besides that, it's about time somebody brought new blood and a little excitement to the notion of strictly limited gubmint and adherence to the Constitution, rather than the lip service paid to it by the golf clapping poseurs currently populating the GOP.

You may have a point there and I will consider it. But I am looking at the bigger picture here and why a Ron Paul isn't able to gain any traction even within the Tea Party that supports all his fiscal goals. Should not his supporters at least consider rethinking their tactics and how they treat those who question their candidate? Demonizing and criticizxing people for being skeptics and accusing them if they question anything about him and/or do not immediately jump on his wagon is not usually going to be persuasive or a winning proposition.

Until Ron Paul supporters are able to promote their candidate in a positive manner and answer his crtitcs in a civil manner and persuade them as to why he is the best candidate, he will not be the nominee and he will not be POTUS. Also the idea that Ron Paul supporters are willing to have Obama re-elected if they can't have their candidate is a huge turn off for many.

 

[Contumacious]

he left Obama with a shattered economy, a trillion dollar deficit, and two useless wars.

true.

Obama saved the country from another Great Depression,

Isn't it true that once you hit bottom the ONLY way to go is up?

.

 

[Immanuel]

And, based on this post of yours, I don't think you read my post or made any effort to understand what I was saying in it.

This is why I say the Ron Paul supporters don't do him any favors. The Ron Paul ideology is so hard core and uncompromising that it appears radical and over the top when it actually isn't. When you are unable to at least comprehend and hear what others are saying, and demonize them because they don't jump on the band wagon, you don't curry any confidence and ensure that your candidate cannot be elected.

Judging the majority by the actions of a very small vocal minority doesn't speak very well for you.

Besides that, it's about time somebody brought new blood and a little excitement to the notion of strictly limited gubmint and adherence to the Constitution, rather than the lip service paid to it by the golf clapping poseurs currently populating the GOP.

And the GOP is trying to foist their candidates upon us regardless what we think...the elites in the GOP loathe the TEA Party

Why shouldn't they?

They "know" they have us by the gonads because we sure as hell are not going to vote for Obama and they don't expect the few they lose to the third parties to cost them the election.

Classic case of arrogance if you ask me.

Immie

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Considering the disaster left by the republicans and their inane partisan obstructionism, Obama as done as well as can be expected under nearly impossible conditions.

Look at what Republicans are offering.

Recession, war, and an erosion of civil liberties, based upon their past performance.

Whatever Obama’s faults and failures, they’re nowhere as bad as was the Bush debacle.

 

[Paulie]

And, based on this post of yours, I don't think you read my post or made any effort to understand what I was saying in it.

This is why I say the Ron Paul supporters don't do him any favors. The Ron Paul ideology is so hard core and uncompromising that it appears radical and over the top when it actually isn't. When you are unable to at least comprehend and hear what others are saying, and demonize them because they don't jump on the band wagon, you don't curry any confidence and ensure that your candidate cannot be elected.

Judging the majority by the actions of a very small vocal minority doesn't speak very well for you.

Besides that, it's about time somebody brought new blood and a little excitement to the notion of strictly limited gubmint and adherence to the Constitution, rather than the lip service paid to it by the golf clapping poseurs currently populating the GOP.

You may have a point there and I will consider it. But I am looking at the bigger picture here and why a Ron Paul isn't able to gain any traction even within the Tea Party that supports all his fiscal goals. Should not his supporters at least consider rethinking their tactics and how they treat those who question their candidate? Demonizing and criticizxing people for being skeptics and accusing them if they question anything about him and/or do not immediately jump on his wagon is not usually going to be persuasive or a winning proposition.

Until Ron Paul supporters are able to promote their candidate in a positive manner and answer his crtitcs in a civil manner and persuade them as to why he is the best candidate, he will not be the nominee and he will not be POTUS. Also the idea that Ron Paul supporters are willing to have Obama re-elected if they can't have their candidate is a huge turn off for many.

There's a lot of irony in this post.

 

[Oddball]

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

Considering the disaster left by the republicans and their inane partisan obstructionism, Obama as done as well as can be expected under nearly impossible conditions.

Look at what Republicans are offering.

Recession, war, and an erosion of civil liberties, based upon their past performance.

Whatever Obama’s faults and failures, they’re nowhere as bad as was the Bush debacle.

Name one of those policies that your golden calf Boiking has completely reversed....Just one.

C'mon...Dazzle us, tovarich.

 

[Immanuel]

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

Considering the disaster left by the republicans and their inane partisan obstructionism, Obama as done as well as can be expected under nearly impossible conditions.

Look at what Republicans are offering.

Recession, war, and an erosion of civil liberties, based upon their past performance.

Whatever Obama’s faults and failures, they’re nowhere as bad as was the Bush debacle.

Name one of those policies that your golden calf Boiking has completely reversed....Just one.

C'mon...Dazzle us, tovarich.

With Civil Liberties he's made things worse.

Immie