If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times) Fail Some Iowa Democrats caucusing for RON PAUL because Obama is too weak-kneed and conservative   (articles.latimes.com) divider line 404
More: Fail, Ron Paul, obama, Iowa, GOP, Democrats, West Des Moines, isolationism, Democratic Caucus  
•       •       •

1610 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Jan 2012 at 10:24 PM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»   |    Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends! shirt it!



404 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-01-02 05:59:02 PM
why the f*ck would a democrat vote for an anti-poor, anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-minority REPUBLICAN like ron paul? are they so f*cking idiotic that they think his one or two libertarian policy positions justify this?
 
2012-01-02 06:20:44 PM
FlashHarry: why the f*ck would a democrat vote for an anti-poor, anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-minority REPUBLICAN like ron paul? are they so f*cking idiotic that they think his one or two libertarian policy positions justify this?

My guess is they're really trying to Operation Chaos the caucus.
 
2012-01-02 06:23:41 PM
Some Iowa Democrats caucusing for RON PAUL because Obama is too weak-kneed and conservative 4 teh lulz
 
2012-01-02 06:25:19 PM
cameroncrazy1984: FlashHarry: why the f*ck would a democrat vote for an anti-poor, anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-minority REPUBLICAN like ron paul? are they so f*cking idiotic that they think his one or two libertarian policy positions justify this?

My guess is they're really trying to Operation Chaos the caucus.


Glenn Greenwald recently wrote a piece that disagrees with this.

I honestly think these are people who were prob conservative/libertarian and supported Obama on the social stuff and his campaign rhetoric about leaving Iraq/protecting civil liberties. They aren't happy with him there, so their bouncing to someone else, however none of the other GOP candidates are any better in those areas.
 
2012-01-02 06:26:45 PM
FlashHarry: why the f*ck would a democrat vote for an anti-poor, anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-minority REPUBLICAN like ron paul? are they so f*cking idiotic that they think his one or two libertarian policy positions justify this?

This is like the umpteenth article I've seen talking about how RON PAUL is the real liberal and liberals should be supporting him instead of Obama. And it makes me wonder where it's coming from.
I don't think these concern troll stories are coming from Democrats/liberals. I think it's all coming from the other Republicans in the race. Essentially, it's "hey look GOP voters! RON PAUL is a liberal!"
 
2012-01-02 06:33:24 PM
propasaurus: FlashHarry: why the f*ck would a democrat vote for an anti-poor, anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-minority REPUBLICAN like ron paul? are they so f*cking idiotic that they think his one or two libertarian policy positions justify this?

This is like the umpteenth article I've seen talking about how RON PAUL is the real liberal and liberals should be supporting him instead of Obama. And it makes me wonder where it's coming from.
I don't think these concern troll stories are coming from Democrats/liberals. I think it's all coming from the other Republicans in the race. Essentially, it's "hey look GOP voters! RON PAUL is a liberal!"


I voted for Obama. IMO, he's Bush's 3rd term, he just doesn't hate gay people and science as much as Bush did, and he actually cared about getting OBL. That's it. We've gone backwards when it comes to the 4th Amendment and the security state we live in.
 
2012-01-02 06:36:29 PM
Fark It: propasaurus: FlashHarry: why the f*ck would a democrat vote for an anti-poor, anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-minority REPUBLICAN like ron paul? are they so f*cking idiotic that they think his one or two libertarian policy positions justify this?

This is like the umpteenth article I've seen talking about how RON PAUL is the real liberal and liberals should be supporting him instead of Obama. And it makes me wonder where it's coming from.
I don't think these concern troll stories are coming from Democrats/liberals. I think it's all coming from the other Republicans in the race. Essentially, it's "hey look GOP voters! RON PAUL is a liberal!"

I voted for Obama. IMO, he's Bush's 3rd term, he just doesn't hate gay people and science as much as Bush did, and he actually cared about getting OBL. That's it. We've gone backwards when it comes to the 4th Amendment and the security state we live in.


And RON PAUL is gonna make it all better? Or Romney? C'mon.
 
2012-01-02 06:36:49 PM
Fark It: propasaurus: FlashHarry: why the f*ck would a democrat vote for an anti-poor, anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-minority REPUBLICAN like ron paul? are they so f*cking idiotic that they think his one or two libertarian policy positions justify this?

This is like the umpteenth article I've seen talking about how RON PAUL is the real liberal and liberals should be supporting him instead of Obama. And it makes me wonder where it's coming from.
I don't think these concern troll stories are coming from Democrats/liberals. I think it's all coming from the other Republicans in the race. Essentially, it's "hey look GOP voters! RON PAUL is a liberal!"

I voted for Obama. IMO, he's Bush's 3rd term, he just doesn't hate gay people and science as much as Bush did, and he actually cared about getting OBL. That's it. We've gone backwards when it comes to the 4th Amendment and the security state we live in.


So he's Bush...exceot for everything but one thing?
 
2012-01-02 06:42:09 PM
FlashHarry: why the f*ck would a democrat vote for an anti-poor, anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-minority REPUBLICAN like ron paul? are they so f*cking idiotic that they think his one or two libertarian policy positions justify this?

Because they're young straight white males that are blinded by privilege making them think "Well, he has some bad points, but they don't really matter that much. These good points are what's really important." At least, that's how it has been in my experience.
 
2012-01-02 08:10:53 PM
propasaurus: Some Iowa Democrats caucusing for RON PAUL because Obama is too weak-kneed and conservative 4 teh lulz

cameroncrazy1984: My guess is they're really trying to Operation Chaos the caucus.

Nothing to add here. But I am going to go ahead and guess that we'll see 210 comments with a bunch of random bullsh*t spewn everywhere about how evil 0bama is and how RON PAUL isn't the answer either, but Sarah Palin could still save us all.
 
2012-01-02 08:12:47 PM
cameroncrazy1984: he's Bush's 3rd term

True but he accidentally took out OBL and got of us out of Iraq already.

America is so conservative these days it wouldn't recognize a real liberal. How the hell else could they fall for the "Paul is a liberal" troll?
 
2012-01-02 08:12:57 PM
propasaurus: Some Iowa Democrats caucusing for RON PAUL because Obama is too weak-kneed and conservative 4 teh lulz

some non-democrat to not vote in the non-election to be held in iowa. yawn
 
2012-01-02 08:19:31 PM
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-01-02 08:22:56 PM
edmo: America is so conservative these days it wouldn't recognize a real liberal. How the hell else could they fall for the "Paul is a liberal" troll?

Seriously, neither are truly liberal, but Ron Paul is less liberal and there's no way his more liberal ideas (legalizing marijuana, for example) would ever get passed Congress/the House. His batshiat crazy ideas on the economy, foreign policy, and deregulation of just about everything (aside from a woman's right to choose -- that freedom isn't okay by him)... I'm not sure this country could survive him, to be honest.

Obama's Presidency is not what I'd hoped it would be, but at least I am not genuinely scared of him like I am of pretty much all the Republicans running.
 
2012-01-02 08:37:24 PM
I've known a few hippies that love Ron Paul. They're idiots.
 
2012-01-02 09:11:00 PM
cameroncrazy1984: My guess is they're really trying to Operation Chaos the caucus.

I was told stories by some old precinct hands that there was a point in time (even then well past the statute of limitations) when in some heavily democratic NY districts, it was routine for the GOP caucus to be about a third re-registered democrats that they had trying to push support for the biggest, most utterly unelectable slate of img1.fark.net that were to be found running with an (R) attached.

Ah, the classic Machine era....

/RON PAUL 2012!
 
2012-01-02 09:21:28 PM
serpent_sky: Seriously, neither are truly liberal, but Ron Paul is less liberal and there's no way his more liberal ideas (legalizing marijuana, for example) would ever get passed Congress/the House. His batshiat crazy ideas on the economy, foreign policy, and deregulation of just about everything (aside from a woman's right to choose -- that freedom isn't okay by him)... I'm not sure this country could survive him, to be honest.

Ron Paul isn't liberal, he'd be conservative by 1850's standards. Ron Paul would be defending slavery and denying women their right to vote, much less actual equality.
 
2012-01-02 09:45:50 PM
He's not out there advocating an individual mandate one year and then denouncing it as socialism the next just because Democrats passed it. The rest of the Republican field are, by-and-large, shameless liars, and everyone knows it. That's appealing to some people.
 
2012-01-02 09:47:42 PM
TheOmni: FlashHarry: why the f*ck would a democrat vote for an anti-poor, anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-minority REPUBLICAN like ron paul? are they so f*cking idiotic that they think his one or two libertarian policy positions justify this?

Because they're young straight white males that are blinded by privilege making them think "Well, he has some bad points, but they don't really matter that much. These good points are what's really important." At least, that's how it has been in my experience.


Democrats explained in 2 words.
 
2012-01-02 09:54:07 PM
GAT_00: Ron Paul isn't liberal, he'd be conservative by 1850's standards. Ron Paul would be defending slavery and denying women their right to vote, much less actual equality.

I did note he scares the crap out of me, precisely for those reasons. I like having rights and equality, I'm kind of used to that. I think he would be absolutely destructive for this country, and no, he's not a liberal. He has a few positions that could be considered on the liberal side of things, but realistically, it's probably about .01% of his entire ideology.
 
2012-01-02 10:20:02 PM
GAT_00: serpent_sky: Seriously, neither are truly liberal, but Ron Paul is less liberal and there's no way his more liberal ideas (legalizing marijuana, for example) would ever get passed Congress/the House. His batshiat crazy ideas on the economy, foreign policy, and deregulation of just about everything (aside from a woman's right to choose -- that freedom isn't okay by him)... I'm not sure this country could survive him, to be honest.

Ron Paul isn't liberal, he'd be conservative by 1850's standards. Ron Paul would be defending slavery and denying women their right to vote, much less actual equality.


that's just farking nonsense.
 
2012-01-02 10:26:04 PM
FlashHarry: why the f*ck would a democrat vote for an anti-poor, anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-minority REPUBLICAN like ron paul? are they so f*cking idiotic that they think his one or two libertarian policy positions justify this?

They are 18 year olds, spend all their time on reddit, and have never voted before in their lives.
 
2012-01-02 10:27:38 PM
But...but...RON PAUL wants to end the drug wars.
 
2012-01-02 10:30:08 PM
Ron Paul is in favor of weed maaaaaaaaaan.
 
2012-01-02 10:30:44 PM
serpent_sky: GAT_00: Ron Paul isn't liberal, he'd be conservative by 1850's standards. Ron Paul would be defending slavery and denying women their right to vote, much less actual equality.

I did note he scares the crap out of me, precisely for those reasons. I like having rights and equality, I'm kind of used to that. I think he would be absolutely destructive for this country, and no, he's not a liberal. He has a few positions that could be considered on the liberal side of things, but realistically, it's probably about .01% of his entire ideology.


The only things that are remotely liberal would be ending the drug wars, bringing the troops home, and drastically cutting down the size of the defense department.

The rest is your typical libertarian/conservative.

It gets tiring trying to see people package this guy as a hero and a genius.
 
2012-01-02 10:31:52 PM
Fart_Machine: Ron Paul is in favor of weed maaaaaaaaaan.

Have you ever caucused for Ron Paul...ON WEED?!?!
 
2012-01-02 10:31:59 PM
The real derp will always be how Ron Paul's liberal critics are walking hand in hand with Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Mark Levin, and the other RINODerps

When you compare the GOP field with Obama....there isn't much difference...just who will be bringing the welfare checks. The only real alternative is Paul
 
2012-01-02 10:34:43 PM
UCFRoadWarrior: The real derp will always be how Ron Paul's liberal critics are walking hand in hand with Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Mark Levin, and the other RINODerps

Again? Every single thread. You know who else both the left and right don't like?
 
2012-01-02 10:36:20 PM
Fark It: propasaurus: FlashHarry: why the f*ck would a democrat vote for an anti-poor, anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-minority REPUBLICAN like ron paul? are they so f*cking idiotic that they think his one or two libertarian policy positions justify this?

This is like the umpteenth article I've seen talking about how RON PAUL is the real liberal and liberals should be supporting him instead of Obama. And it makes me wonder where it's coming from.
I don't think these concern troll stories are coming from Democrats/liberals. I think it's all coming from the other Republicans in the race. Essentially, it's "hey look GOP voters! RON PAUL is a liberal!"

I voted for Obama. IMO, he's Bush's 3rd term, he just doesn't hate gay people and science as much as Bush did, and he actually cared about getting OBL. That's it. We've gone backwards when it comes to the 4th Amendment and the security state we live in.


Because in addition to ending the US practices of torture and rendition to torture, Bush in his third term would have withdrawn US forces from Iraq, appointed Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, and signed into law all of the following legislation:

Enacted
Main article: Acts of the 111th United States Congress

* January 29, 2009: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-2
* February 4, 2009: Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (SCHIP), Pub.L. 111-3
* February 17, 2009: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), Pub.L. 111-5
* March 11, 2009: Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub.L. 111-8
* March 30, 2009: Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-11
* April 21, 2009: Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, Pub.L. 111-13
* May 20, 2009: Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-21
* May 20, 2009: Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-22
* May 22, 2009: Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-23
* May 22, 2009: Credit CARD Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-24
* June 22, 2009: Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, as Division A of Pub.L. 111-31
* June 24, 2009: Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 including the Car Allowance Rebate System (Cash for Clunkers), Pub.L. 111-32
* October 28, 2009: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, including the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, Pub.L. 111-84
* November 6, 2009: Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-92
* December 16, 2009: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, Pub.L. 111-117
* February 12, 2010: Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act, as Title I of Pub.L. 111-139
* March 4, 2010: Travel Promotion Act of 2009, as Section 9 of Pub.L. 111-145
* March 18, 2010: Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act, Pub.L. 111-147
* March 23, 2010: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub.L. 111-148
* March 30, 2010: Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, including the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, Pub.L. 111-152
* May 5, 2010: Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-163
* July 1, 2010: Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-195
* July 21, 2010: Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub.L. 111-203
* August 3, 2010: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-220
* August 10, 2010: SPEECH Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-223
* September 27, 2010: Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-240
* December 8, 2010: Claims Resolution Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-291
* December 13, 2010: Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-296
* December 17, 2010: Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-312, H.R. 4853
* December 22, 2010: Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-321, H.R. 2965
* January 2, 2011: James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-347, H.R. 847
* January 4, 2011: Shark Conservation Act, Pub.L. 111-348, H.R. 81
* January 4, 2011: Food Safety and Modernization Act, Pub.L. 111-353, H.R. 2751

But hey, you know, don't let objective reality stop you from the half-baked gruntings you call political commentary.
 
2012-01-02 10:37:07 PM
Sabyen91: You know who else both the left and right don't like?

RON PAUL supporters sound like Scientologists?
 
2012-01-02 10:39:35 PM
When questioned on which policies of Congressman Paul he supports, the democrat responded "Duuuuude"
 
2012-01-02 10:40:06 PM
Sabyen91: UCFRoadWarrior: The real derp will always be how Ron Paul's liberal critics are walking hand in hand with Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Mark Levin, and the other RINODerps

Again? Every single thread. You know who else both the left and right don't like?


Mimes? It's mimes isn't it?
 
2012-01-02 10:41:01 PM
Sabyen91: UCFRoadWarrior: The real derp will always be how Ron Paul's liberal critics are walking hand in hand with Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Mark Levin, and the other RINODerps

Again? Every single thread. You know who else both the left and right don't like?


Alright, how is UCFRoadWarrior wrong?
 
2012-01-02 10:41:28 PM
I Said: cameroncrazy1984: FlashHarry: why the f*ck would a democrat vote for an anti-poor, anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-minority REPUBLICAN like ron paul? are they so f*cking idiotic that they think his one or two libertarian policy positions justify this?

My guess is they're really trying to Operation Chaos the caucus.

Glenn Greenwald recently wrote a piece that disagrees with this.

I honestly think these are people who were prob conservative/libertarian and supported Obama on the social stuff and his campaign rhetoric about leaving Iraq/protecting civil liberties. They aren't happy with him there, so their bouncing to someone else, however none of the other GOP candidates are any better in those areas.


A large part of the problem is that people have unrealistic expectations. Frequently, this is just ignorance and assumptions that are false. Sometimes, it's because people are just retarded. And I don't mean this as a defense of Obama, but a defense of all presidents. Example: people think it's possible to have just pulled out of Iraq in a couple of weeks. While that is true in the most rudimentary of ways, it ignores realities and things that even those who want us out ASAP wouldn't want left behind. (Stockpiles of ammunition and heavy equipment that took years to build up do not get removed in seven days, no matter how much you want it.)

In addition, you get people who believe what others tell them is going on rather than reading the source material themselves. 99.9% of the time, if something is described as apocalyptic America-ending bills, it's nothing of the sort. I haven't yet sat down and read the NDAA, but I suspect that once I do, it will confirm my suspicions that it isn't what people think it is.

In the end, Obama has accomplished about what I could expect him to, all things considered.
 
2012-01-02 10:43:06 PM
jehovahs witness protection: TheOmni: FlashHarry: why the f*ck would a democrat vote for an anti-poor, anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-minority REPUBLICAN like ron paul? are they so f*cking idiotic that they think his one or two libertarian policy positions justify this?

Because they're young straight white males that are blinded by privilege making them think "Well, he has some bad points, but they don't really matter that much. These good points are what's really important." At least, that's how it has been in my experience.

Democrats explained in 2 words.


Which Republican derp tard is your choice?
 
2012-01-02 10:43:50 PM
I'll just leave this here:

RP gets a higher score from the ACLU than Obama (new window)

I understand a lot of people, with very good reason, are against a Ron Paul presidency. But don't act like an ass and say it's because a few misguided hippies want weed to be legalized. There are issues, big issues, issues that Obama ran on last time, where Paul's rhetoric is further left than Obama's was and is far further left than his actions have been. I know "what you say and what you can do when in office are two different things" but Obama's election was partly a rejection of "business as usual" in Washington, and when some of his supporters didn't see that shift happening as fast as they wanted, what did you think they would do?
 
2012-01-02 10:44:51 PM
cbcs: Sabyen91: UCFRoadWarrior: The real derp will always be how Ron Paul's liberal critics are walking hand in hand with Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Mark Levin, and the other RINODerps

Again? Every single thread. You know who else both the left and right don't like?

Alright, how is UCFRoadWarrior wrong?


Thinking that just because the left and the right hate him he must be onto something is how he is wrong. I thought that was clearly evident in my Godwin.
 
2012-01-02 10:45:35 PM
Fark It: propasaurus: FlashHarry: why the f*ck would a democrat vote for an anti-poor, anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-minority REPUBLICAN like ron paul? are they so f*cking idiotic that they think his one or two libertarian policy positions justify this?

This is like the umpteenth article I've seen talking about how RON PAUL is the real liberal and liberals should be supporting him instead of Obama. And it makes me wonder where it's coming from.
I don't think these concern troll stories are coming from Democrats/liberals. I think it's all coming from the other Republicans in the race. Essentially, it's "hey look GOP voters! RON PAUL is a liberal!"

I voted for Obama. IMO, he's Bush's 3rd term, he just doesn't hate gay people and science as much as Bush did, and he actually cared about getting OBL. That's it. We've gone backwards when it comes to the 4th Amendment and the security state we live in.


And economics, which are pretty important right now. Obama wants to raise taxes on the richest Americans. Bush gave them a cut during war time and got us into Iraq for no good reason (a conflict which recently ended under Obama's term).
 
2012-01-02 10:46:42 PM
Sabyen91: cbcs: Sabyen91: UCFRoadWarrior: The real derp will always be how Ron Paul's liberal critics are walking hand in hand with Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Mark Levin, and the other RINODerps

Again? Every single thread. You know who else both the left and right don't like?

Alright, how is UCFRoadWarrior wrong?

Thinking that just because the left and the right hate him he must be onto something is how he is wrong. I thought that was clearly evident in my Godwin.


Yeah, it's like those douchebags who are Yankees or Cowboys fans just because everyone else hates them.
 
2012-01-02 10:47:41 PM
FlashHarry: why the f*ck would a democrat vote for an anti-poor, anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-minority REPUBLICAN like ron paul? are they so f*cking idiotic that they think his one or two libertarian policy positions justify this?

Staunch liberal here. I would vote for RON PAUL because

a) He won't be able to overturn the civil rights act. Sorry, he just won't
b) He will use his veto pen to veto new legislation
c) He won't be able to overturn the civil rights act
d) He will be able to stop stupid executive orders
e) He won't be able to overturn the civil rights act
f) He will withdraw troops from oversees as the commander in chief, shrinking the defense budget
g) He would look at the federal reserve under the microscope they deserve
h) the damage he could do in 4 years would be less than someone that doesn't veto
i) He has stated that gay marriage isn't an issue of the governement and probably wouldn't be able to overturn the recent pro gay rights military act

Therefore: he can't undo the good Obama has done, but he will be able to do the good that Obama hasn't.
 
2012-01-02 10:48:02 PM
propasaurus
And RON PAUL is gonna make it all better?

He's not going to win, but he might confront Obama with some reeeeally awkward questions.


bugontherug
Main article: Acts of the 111th United States Congress

What an impressive-looking list of mostly bugger-all.
 
2012-01-02 10:48:10 PM
FlashHarry: why the f*ck would a democrat vote for an anti-poor, anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-minority REPUBLICAN like ron paul? are they so f*cking idiotic that they think his one or two libertarian policy positions justify this?

Because he isn't a murderer?

Yes there'd be policy fights on if Ron Paul won but at least we could be sure that he wouldn't be imprisoning people indefinitely for stepping out of line, or killing thousands of innocent people with drone bombers, or overthrowing sovereign nations for shiats and giggles.
 
2012-01-02 10:48:44 PM
vygramul: A large part of the problem is that people have unrealistic expectations. Frequently, this is just ignorance and assumptions that are false. Sometimes, it's because people are just retarded. And I don't mean this as a defense of Obama, but a defense of all presidents. Example: people think it's possible to have just pulled out of Iraq in a couple of weeks. While that is true in the most rudimentary of ways, it ignores realities and things that even those who want us out ASAP wouldn't want left behind. (Stockpiles of ammunition and heavy equipment that took years to build up do not get removed in seven days, no matter how much you want it.)

In addition, you get people who believe what others tell them is going on rather than reading the source material themselves. 99.9% of the time, if something is described as apocalyptic America-ending bills, it's nothing of the sort. I haven't yet sat down and read the NDAA, but I suspect that once I do, it will confirm my suspicions that it isn't what people think it is.

In the end, Obama has accomplished about what I could expect him to, all things considered.


I agree largely with you, except the end. I think Obama and the Dems really f*cked up the healthcare debate (the repubs were being assholes, but I don't think the dems were serious about the Public Option. Also the concession to pharma companies was dogsh*t) and they squandered their majority by passing watered down versions of the things they ran on. Now this is certainly not all Obama's fault, but he could have used that veto pen a bit more and stuck to his guns a bit more on tax increases for big corps and the top 1%. Even if congress overrides the veto, I sorely want a President on the left who will at least make those f*ckers fight for it.

Although now I've gone way off the subject of the thread :)
 
2012-01-02 10:49:17 PM
I Said: I'll just leave this here:

RP gets a higher score from the ACLU than Obama (new window)

I understand a lot of people, with very good reason, are against a Ron Paul presidency. But don't act like an ass and say it's because a few misguided hippies want weed to be legalized. There are issues, big issues, issues that Obama ran on last time, where Paul's rhetoric is further left than Obama's was and is far further left than his actions have been. I know "what you say and what you can do when in office are two different things" but Obama's election was partly a rejection of "business as usual" in Washington, and when some of his supporters didn't see that shift happening as fast as they wanted, what did you think they would do?


It's a fair argument to make.

But it's absurd to say that Ron Paul is more liberal than Obama just because he opposes the Patriot Act and the War on Drugs because Ron Paul cancels that out by being much further to the right of Obama on domestic issues.
 
2012-01-02 10:50:02 PM
Sabyen91: UCFRoadWarrior: The real derp will always be how Ron Paul's liberal critics are walking hand in hand with Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Mark Levin, and the other RINODerps

This.
 
2012-01-02 10:50:03 PM
Man, the egg'll be on their faces when RON PAUL wins the Presidency, and issues letters of marque and reprisal against the Barbary Pirates.
 
2012-01-02 10:50:10 PM
They should all be lined up and slapped one by one.
 
2012-01-02 10:50:24 PM
I Said: I'll just leave this here:

RP gets a higher score from the ACLU than Obama (new window)

I understand a lot of people, with very good reason, are against a Ron Paul presidency. But don't act like an ass and say it's because a few misguided hippies want weed to be legalized. There are issues, big issues, issues that Obama ran on last time, where Paul's rhetoric is further left than Obama's was and is far further left than his actions have been. I know "what you say and what you can do when in office are two different things" but Obama's election was partly a rejection of "business as usual" in Washington, and when some of his supporters didn't see that shift happening as fast as they wanted, what did you think they would do?


And that's really the problem. I remember in Poland in the early '90s, they started re-electing former Communists. When asked about it, some people on the street said, "Well, Capitalism has had 3 years and we aren't any better off." Idiot. Communism wrecked your country for 45 years. You ain't fixing that in 5. People on both sides tend to have unrealistic expectations. Part of Obama's problem is that he's willing to say things like, "it may take more than one president to fix this economy," which is true, no matter WHO was in power. But that's a no-no and he gets made fun of not for being accurate, but because he should know better than to say something that is politically unwise.
 
2012-01-02 10:51:13 PM
CitizensUnited: Man, the egg'll be on their faces when RON PAUL wins the Presidency, and issues letters of marque and reprisal against the Barbary Pirates.

Wait...is that in the Constitution?
 
2012-01-02 10:51:17 PM
CitizensUnited
Man, the egg'll be on their faces when RON PAUL wins the Presidency, and issues letters of marque and reprisal against the Barbary Pirates.

THAT'S NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION.
 
Displayed 50 of 404 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »