...or "drug czar"
...or "drug czar"
Eat Us And Smile
Cenk For America 2024!!
Justice Democrats
"If the American people had ever known the truth about what we (the BCE) have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." - Poppy Bush, 1992
If he wasn't for zero regulations.........hell, I could even support him.Originally Posted by FORD
E- Jesus . Playing both sides because he didnt understand the argument in the first place
Obama's COS resigned due to infighting and turmoil in his cabinet ...
O may have the media in his pocket but ..
The large % of African Americans that voted for him last election may not come out to support him due to lack of fulfilling campaign promises and high unemployment(also many were not regular voters and the urgency to elect the 1st black president isn't there this time) .. the educated independents and the youth vote that got behind BO last election are leaning Paul
Many blacks, when they hear Paul criticize drug laws as racist, as he cites the disproportionate # of blacks serving time for drug arrests and convictions- even though arrests for AA and whites are about = %,... of those serving time - the black% is much greater .. Obama is not seeking to reform drug laws and address those concerns as Paul is ..
seems Paul may be a spoiler and split the vote ..
Also keep in mind - Romney may be Mormon and believe in Jesus - Christians don't necessarily accept the claim of Mormons as Christian due to the Mormon sect being the only sect to follow Jesus and not accept the nicene creed - I am not a religious nut - but to those that follow politics and the trend of voter demographics have pointed that out as to why romney is only garnering 25-30% of the right vote - which means 70-75% do not support him
Politics is math - If Romney gains 25-30% of the vote and O gets 30-35% - Paul could pull an upset with 35-40%
But .. the popular vote only means so much - the electoral college has it's say in the matter too .. 2012 will be an interesting election fo' sho'
No, the only 2 things a Ron Paul third party run would accomplish is guaranteeing a BHO re-election and ruining any chance his wack job son has with the GOP
I disagree...
Circle gets a square...
Paul could only be a spoiler if he runs as an Independent.......
He refused last time to leave the GOP and I see no reason for him not to do the same this time.
The GOP don't really like him and I doubt he'll get the nomination.
So he's out in my book.
I will say this......it looks like the Repukes don't have any candidate that the party can rally around. So who knows who'll get the nod.
Mitt has ran and lost before........Repukes aren't keen on Newt.
The rest are right wing nut jobs with Paul being the most rational of them........Huntsman is a dead man walking!
4 more years for Obama!
Last edited by kwame k; 01-10-2012 at 07:24 PM.
Good riddance to Bill "Shittibank" Daley. Fuck him and his entire family. They should have been kicked out of the Democratic party after that display of fascism at the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago.
If Obama had a brain in his head and a nut in his sack, he'd never appoint ANYBODY from Chicago, or from the DLC to his administration again. And if he wants his base back, he really needs to appoint somebody from the Dean/Feingold/Grayson wing of the party. Or as they are otherwise known, ACTUAL Democrats.
If you want Ron Paul to run on a Libertarian/Randtard/whatever ticket, then you better be lobbying your congressional teabaggers to overturn Shittizens United. Because you gotta get corporate money out of politics before anybody else has a chance.
Otherwise, I'd probably be backing Rocky Anderson this time around.
Buddy Roehmer has a better chance than Ron / Rand Paul......
ELBOW is just stirring shit
Maybe you guys missed this.
Paul is in a virtual tie with Romney and Obama. Can't win? He's done this well while being ignored or smeared by the mainstream media. The more they ignore him at this point, the more support he gets.
Yeah but it's still way too early for those numbers to mean anything........
Quite true. Paul will be in the lead in a few months.
Paul's a pipe dream.........was last time, is this time!
I'm surprised that So called "progressives", especially here, aren't giving Paul more support. I mean, President Obama has certainly proved himself to be an "establishment" politician; much like Mittens.
Paul, while far from perfect, is the only candidate who is even remotely anti establishment and therefore more progressive. He's the only one who will even consider shaking things up.
I'm noticing that the liberals seem to be just as partisan as conservatives. This tells me that both Dem and GOP supporters are pretty much supporting the status quo.
Nope, I'm not partisan at all. I vote Demo, Repuke, or Indy if I feel the person is right for the job.
Paul's biggest turn off for me is his belief that ending regulations will balance itself out in the marketplace. I disagree and looking back in history tells me I'm right.
The Great Depression caused in great part because of lax regulation..........
The Great Recession caused in great part because of lax regulations........
See a pattern there?
If we had a congress made up with at least a 67% majority in both houses of actual Sanders/Kucinich/Feingold/Grayson style Liberals, I would vote for Ron Paul as President. They would agree on the good things, like ending the stupid wars which have nothing to do with this country, the war on drugs, and the out of control private mafia bank called the "Federal" reserve.
But without that kind of Congress, Paul is too big of a risk. His Randtard fairytale agenda, with a teabagger congress to pass it, would literally be the death of this country. The last 30 years of BCE policies may have seriously wounded it, but there's still hope of recovery if the damage is reversed.
Ron Paul wants to do MORE damage.
I don't think any of us so-called Liberals have given Obama a free pass on anything and I defy you to find someone who hates Reid and Pelosi more than I do.
The problem is.....not one candidate is better than Obama......so what choice do I have?
I agree that you guys have not sucked on Obama's asshole very hard since he's been President; and that's fair. Where we disagree is that I do believe that Paul is a better candidate than President Obama. If Paul does not receive the GOP nomination, and he probably won't, I ain't gonna bother voting for Obama or Romney either because I don't think there's much of a difference.
OMFG
RON PAUL WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT
The Democratic party is a party of war now. I would say that they're just as much of a risk as the GOP. If you vote for Obama, you support a guy who's foreign policies, drug policies, etc are in sync with Mitt Romney.
If you don't like Paul's domestic policies, then you should vote 3rd party. It's what I've done in past years. At least I knew that I didn't vote for any of this draconian stuff.
Look, I'm as pissed as anyone that the spineless wonders were too much of a pussy to pass anything when the Demos had the majority.......the Health Care Bill, which effects every single American and with costs spiraling out of control couldn't ram a decent Bill down the Repukes throats.
The Repukes ran a good fear campaign with Death Panels and mandatory jail sentences.....while the Demos just caved in. They paid the price by losing the majority.
Mitt is running away from his progressive past and I think there are huge differences between him and Obama.
Out of everyone running.....Obama is the best there is. I'd love a viable 3rd option but there isn't anyone.
What......vote for Nader?
I threw away my vote when I voted for Perot back in the day.......which actually helped defeat Bush, so it worked out OK!
I did like the idea if he got x percentage of the vote he'd get national funding for his party. He was actually the last hope for a viable 3rd party. All the other 3rd party groups today are just too fringe for my taste and it'd be throwing my vote away.
There's too much at stake to have a Repuke president.
The Democratic Party are the ones bringing our troops home....while the Newt is saying he'll send them back to Iraq. Obama pledged he'd do it and has. Took longer than promised but at least we're getting the fuck out of Iraq.
If the Repukes have their way.....we'll be back in Iraq and invading Iran. No fucking way am I letting that happen.
Fair enough. But downward is an actual different direction....
Funny, but Obama is often seen as not ruthless enough rather than a Machiavellian politician saying anything to anyone to get elected. He's seen as weak in the face of a bulwarking, mindlessly partisan congress more interested in a masturbatory orgy of the teabagger mentality thwarting actual governance. You can argue he isn't taking things in a different direction, but I would seriously debate that. I'm no Obama sycophant, but it is hard to argue that at the very least he hasn't changed our course and pulled us out of Iraq, is working to get out of Afghanistan, and has rolled back at least a little of the corporate shilling by the Bushleaguers...I don't believe a word the other candidates tell me. They are in this for themselves, and they will lie, cheat, steal and manipulate things to get into office. Obama lied to people. We have to accept that. I thought he would take things in a different direction, but in a lot of ways, he's been worse than Bush was. In other ways, not as bad. But on the balance, it's more of the same.
I'd say they're vastly worse than Obama, and run the gambit from hypocrite to completely delusional. Obama has at least a modicum of palpable intelligence whereas all save Newt are just a bunch of fucking dumb guys too stupid to be selfconscious as to how moronic they actually sound...Santorum, Perry, Newt ... those guys would be just as bad as Obama in different ways. None of them want to change the course we're on. None of them would even try. Things would simply get worse, slowly and inexorably.
You can't be a libertarian and be against a woman's right to choose. And much of his foreign policy is anything but "well thought out," bordering on being unworkability insane IMO. One of his main advisers just left him on this basis alone...For me, that leaves Paul. I look at him, read about him, watch his positions now and in older interviews, and the guy is consistent. I don't agree with all of his points of view, but they are logical and thought out. And he believes it. I know what I'm getting. I know what he'll try to get done. And a lot of it is good.
Read above. You may not care about abortion, but it is still a litmus test as to someone's commitment to true libertarianism. You either believe that gov't should be off our backs, or you don't!I don't care about abortion, so that isn't a disqualifier for me. I don't care about this racism nonsense, either. Every single presidential candidate gets accused of being a racist. Obama, Perry, Newt, Paul, Romney... all of them.
Pres. Obama didn't go to war without authorization, the party that Paul belongs too did...I do care about the nations budget and finances. I do care about how much we go to war (without authorization) and push the rest of the world around.
It's a shitty bill that was rammed down our throats by a dickish congress as part of a defense bill, but the gov't cannot just hold everyone without charge if they are Americans....I do care about the expanding intrusiveness of the federal government, spying on me, telling me what I can and can't do, exerting more and more control over my life, and now, being allowed to arrest me and hold me indefinitely.
Isn't Paul in the Congress?Obama and Bush and all the other douchebags that have served in the congress. Do you think Romney will be any better? Perry? Do you think Obama will suddenly say, "no, this is wrong, we have to change it?" Those ships sailed a long time ago. They are lying to you.
Um, it was a document written over 200 years ago that couldn't possibly spell out all of the intricacies of modern technology, society, economy, etc.You can call Ron Paul a nutbag all you want, but consider this:
When did it become "crazy" to say that we should only have the federal government do what it's allowed to do in the Constitution? If you want to give the federal government more power, amend the constitution. Give all the states the ability to say yes/no. Don't let the federal government legislate itself an every expanding set of powers.
In that case of absolute literalism that extremist right winger sometime argue, we should disband the U.S. Air Force, because the Constitution says nothing regardings the provision of it!
Um, Obama did bring the troops back from Iraq, though...When did it become "crazy" to say that we don't want to go to war all the time. How many wars do you want to see happen in your lifetime? When is enough, enough? We can bring our troops home, use that money domestically (or here's a shocking idea, we can stop taking it from our citizens) and improve the situation here. I don't believe for a second that we wouldn't be able to get back into a conflict if we needed to anywhere in the world. But it would take something that drove the entire nation mobilize and push congress to declare war ... no more presidents just deciding they want to drag us into yet another conflict. What is so crazy about that?
Ron Paul's policies would paralyze the gov't, and it is way to early to proclaim Obama, a president whom inherited one of the worst economies in history, a "failure." You may feel that way, but I think his policies averted a much greater catastrophe and an economic Depression. With Paul, you'd get an erratic, unworkable statesmen. We WOULD have been in a severe depression had that guy won in 2008...I don't believe for a second that Paul would get everything he wanted. But he would do something Obama doesn't do. He'd start saying "no" and start arguing for a different direction. With that platform, he could change the mindset and direction of the country. We could make some actual progress. I thought Obama would do that, but he's nothing more than a liar. I am a lot more skeptical about politicians as a result. Obama is a failure. Paul is consistent and you know what you'll get.
That doesn't sound crazy to me at all.
Furthermore, Paul masks himself behind the feelgood rhetoric of an economic, property-rights libertarian while his policies would actually aid and abed the REAL problem, the further down-slide into a plutocracy with gov't being gradually castrated as any sort of check on the powers of multinational corporations, and their seeming course to mindlessly annihilate the middle classes...
Is that what Faux news told you ??OMFG
RON PAUL WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT
What's Beck telling you?
I don't listen to Beck...
Must be Rush, then...........
No, common sense.
What does baby jesus tell you?
Ron Paul has the best chance to beat Obama
Keep an open mind and realize congress will keep the balance - 1 thing Paul won't do is invade a country w/o congressional approval or abuse executive mandates
The guy is a constitutionalist - which is great ! A concept most modern politicians cannot comprehend. Maybe you like the idea of a constitutionalist candidate but don;t like the wrapper this one comes in - oh well, it is what it is
A vote for Mitt or O is a vote for the lobbyist swayed politician who operates behind closed doors and issues executive orders appointing people to office when congress is out of session
Ron Paul will give the government some transparency - & he would also audit the Federal Reserve - we don't need our bank operating outside of our best interest
laugh now, cry later, then vote Paul
.. unless you want 4 more yrs of Obama
You guys saying RP will never be President, well ... he's doing pretty well so far. And in national polls, he's equaling Obama. I honestly think RP could pull support away from Obama and Romney due to being both to the left and to the right of both Obama and Romney.
He followed Bush's timetable for withdrawal, and that's only because Iraq wouldn't agree to a longer timetable.
Look at it in the macro sense. What are they going to do that significantly differs than Obama, other than the healthcare thing? Obama has disappointed a lot of people. Candidate Obama and President Obama are very different people. He caves to the right constantly. Heck, on a lot of positions, Obama is to the right of Paul! That's crazy! How does Obama reconcile that with the electorate?I'd say they're vastly worse than Obama, and run the gambit from hypocrite to completely delusional. Obama has at least a modicum of palpable intelligence whereas all save Newt are just a bunch of fucking dumb guys too stupid to be selfconscious as to how moronic they actually sound...
Which one? Are you talking about the guy that left quite a long time ago and was on the news saying RP isn't racist but his foreign policy is loony?You can't be a libertarian and be against a woman's right to choose. And much of his foreign policy is anything but "well thought out," bordering on being unworkability insane IMO. One of his main advisers just left him on this basis alone...
So I'm bundling my response to this and the "not a libertarian" thing together here ... it just doesn't matter to me and doesn't affect my support. Ron Paul's views are self-consistent. I don't care if they aren't totally libertarian or republican or anything. I'm an independent... I don't care about party line or ideology as much as I care about the individual and their positions.Read above. You may not care about abortion, but it is still a litmus test as to someone's commitment to true libertarianism. You either believe that gov't should be off our backs, or you don't!
Doesn't resonate with me. I don't like the republicans. If Paul isn't the nominee, I won't be voting for their party. But I won't vote for Obama again. He does not deserve my support.Pres. Obama didn't go to war without authorization, the party that Paul belongs too did...
Yeah, it was, as for the latter, I'm not so sure.It's a shitty bill that was rammed down our throats by a dickish congress as part of a defense bill, but the gov't cannot just hold everyone without charge if they are Americans....
thankfully yes. He isn't voting for the destruction of our rights.Isn't Paul in the Congress?
So if we want to give the Federal Government more power, we amend the constitution. Why should we let them just decide they should have more power on their own? Every single congressman, every single senator, every single president goes in saying that government is too powerful and that they'll change that. None of them ever do. (I realize that's a vast generalization).Um, it was a document written over 200 years ago that couldn't possibly spell out all of the intricacies of modern technology, society, economy, etc.
In that case of absolute literalism that extremist right winger sometime argue, we should disband the U.S. Air Force, because the Constitution says nothing regardings the provision of it!
The thing is, when RP says it, I really believe it ... but then, I believed Obama and what a liar he turned out to be.
He was following a pre-determined timeline and had tried to press for extending that schedule and when the iraqis told him no, only then did he do it. That doesn't really sell it for me.Um, Obama did bring the troops back from Iraq, though...
I still take a macro point of view. Paul and Congress temper each other and he can build broader coalitions with both repubs AND dems and hopefully breaks more of the gridlock. I don't have any illusions that RP or Obama can single handedly save or destroy the economy. But Obama had a REAL chance to change things up there. The bankers were on their heels and there was a clear opportunity to deal with corruption and crony capitalism.Ron Paul's policies would paralyze the gov't, and it is way to early to proclaim Obama, a president whom inherited one of the worst economies in history, a "failure." You may feel that way, but I think his policies averted a much greater catastrophe and an economic Depression. With Paul, you'd get an erratic, unworkable statesmen. We WOULD have been in a severe depression had that guy won in 2008...
Furthermore, Paul masks himself behind the feelgood rhetoric of an economic, property-rights libertarian while his policies would actually aid and abed the REAL problem, the further down-slide into a plutocracy with gov't being gradually castrated as any sort of check on the powers of multinational corporations, and their seeming course to mindlessly annihilate the middle classes...
What did Obama do? What did he do?
Did he go on the offensive and put in the things we need to fix the problems?
Or did he appoint an insider to the treasury dept? Did he waffle and pander? Did he keep on the gloves and throw soft punches? Did he give the very people that fucked this place royally our money?
I don't agree with Ron Paul's idea of completely removing all regulations. I think part of that is national security and defending the rest of us. But RP is firmly against crony capitalism and the abuses that were going on. Is Obama? Are any of the other candidates?
C'mon, I'm not a Paul supporter by any means but I can't fault him for that decision.
ROTH ARMY MILITIA
Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
Sharky sometimes needs things spelled out for him in explicit, specific detail. I used to think it was a lawyer thing, but over time it became more and more evident that he's merely someone's idiot twin.
That speech cracked me up......
I swear Ron Paul is like your Poli Sci Prof who won't shut up.....
I admire his Foreign Policy stance, I really do....with a few exceptions...
BUT. HE. WILL. NEVER. WIN.
Today's elected office is about ONE thing....... $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$44
And he will never have enough.
And you can thank Citizens United and the bought and paid for SCOTUS for that...
Fucking lawyers [ Hi Sharkey]
$$$$ don't elect Presidents, people do ... just look at how much Romney had to pay per vote in Iowa. And there's every indication that he won by a typo.
If Paul can make it a two man race between him and Romney we'll see if republicans can sacrifice principal for the false promise of victory (romney will never beat Obama) or if they will vote for principle and conviction.
Seeing the republican party, I'm not hopeful.
Calling Dr. Love......wakey wakey.
They do now.
When it hits national election time $$$$$$ will count, period.
TV ads sway people's perceptions because most people are too fucking lazy to read or form their own opinions.
There are currently 6 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 6 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
